ArticleBMC neurology2022
Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials and cortical somatosensory evoked potentials assessment in congenital scoliosis.
Article in BMC neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in risk prediction of early postoperative neurological deterioration after thoracic spine surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- S2, S3, and S4 Sacral Dermatomal Evoked Potentials: Technical Parameters and Normative Values.Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society · 2026Article
- Applications of pelvic neurophysiology testing in clinical practice.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Review
- Assessment of Neurologic Safety Profile of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Reports.Current drug safety · 2024Article
- Evaluating somatosensory evoked potentials in predicting treatment outcomes for thoracolumbar spinal compression fractures using closed reduction and over-extension techniques.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Bilateral Bi-Level Erector Spinae Plane Blocks as a Part of Opioid-Sparing Multimodal Analgesia in Scoliosis Surgery: A Case Series of Six Pediatric Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- The value of somatosensory evoked potentials in intraoperative evaluation of indirect decompression effect of oblique lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis.International orthopaedics · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the value of dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials (DSEPs) and cortical somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) in monitoring spinal cord function for patients with congenital scoliosis (CS).
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed the medical records of patients (n = 102) who underwent DSEP (T2-S1 dermatome), of whom 60 were normal subjects and 62 with congenital scoliosis. The study analyzed the latencies and peaks of N1-L, N1-R, P1-L and P1-R recorded by DSEPs of patients' thoracolumbar dermatomes. To observe the incidence of abnormal DSEPs and SSEPs in CS patients and to analyze the difference in sensitivity and reliability between the two in the examination of scoliosis patients. SPSS 22.0 statistical software package was used to analyze the data, and χ2 test and correlation analysis were used to indicate that the difference was statistically significant, p < 0.05.
resultsSixty two patients with CS were evaluated with total spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Only 23 patients (37.09%) showed spinal cord malformations in the MRI findings. The DSEP recordings showed a relatively high sensitivity (97.8%) compared to the abnormality rate of SSEPs recordings, and the rates of waveform, latency and amplitude abnormalities were much higher in DSEPs recordings (36.6, 36.3, 24.8%) than in SSEPs recordings (3.2, 22.5, 14.5%). The abnormality rate of DSEP records with and without neurological symptoms was higher than the abnormality rate of SSEP records (100% vs 20, 96.2% vs 44.2%, p<0.05). And in 62 patients with CS, the rate of positive MRI (37.1%) was lower than that recorded by DSEP (79.6% / 57.9%). p < 0.05.
conclusionDSEPs are more sensitive to microscopic posterior column dysfunction in patients with CS that cannot be detected by either radiology or routine clinical examination. Preoperative DSEPs assessment is recommended as a baseline examination for intraoperative monitoring and comparison with the postoperative situation. DSEPs recording complements the information obtained from routine clinical and radiological evaluation.
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.