ArticleEmergency radiology2022
Clinical significance of "positive" cervical spine MRI findings following a negative CT.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traumatic Spinal Injury in Children; Time to Revise Pre-Hospital and Diagnostic Protocols?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A novel classification that defines the normal cervical spine: an analysis based on 632 asymptomatic Chinese volunteers.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024Article
- Two decades of nonfatal injury data: a scoping review of the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, 2001-2021.Injury epidemiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo review and analyze the clinical significance of positive acute traumatic findings seen on MRI of the cervical spine (MRCS) following a negative CT of the cervical spine (CTCS) for trauma.
methodsWe performed a sub-cohort analysis of 54 patients with negative CTCS and a positive MRCS after spine trauma from the previous multicenter study of the Research Consortium of New England Centers for Trauma (ReCONECT). Both CTCS and MRCS were independently reviewed by two emergency radiologists and two spine surgeons. The surgeons also commented on the clinical significance of the traumatic findings seen on MRCS and grouped them into unstable, potentially unstable, and stable injuries.
resultsAmong 35 unevaluable patients, MRCS showed one unstable (hyperextension) and two potentially unstable (hyperflexion) injuries. Subtle findings were seen on CTCS in 2 of 3 patients upon careful retrospective review that would have suggested these injuries. Of 19 patients presenting with cervicalgia, 2/5 (40%) patients with neurological deficit demonstrated clinically significant findings on MRCS with predisposing factors seen on CT. None of the 14 patients with isolated cervicalgia and no neurological deficit had clinically significant findings on their MRCS.
conclusionWhile CTCS is adequate for clearing the cervical spine in patients with isolated cervicalgia, MRCS can play a critical role in patients with neurological deficits and normal CTCS. Clinically significant traumatic findings were seen in 8.5% of unevaluable patients on MRCS, though these injuries in fact could be identified on the CT in 2 of 3 patients upon careful retrospective review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.