ArticleHealth science reports2022
Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain-A pragmatic study.
Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurofunctional Changes Following Multimodal Rehabilitation Treatment in Patients with Cervical Spondylosis: An Exploratory Electrophysiological Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Does residual foraminal stenosis at levels not covered by anterior cervical discectomy and fusion aggravate postoperative outcomes in cervical radiculopathy?Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy: a scoping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Therapeutic Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Selective Nerve Block on Chronic Cervical Radiculopathy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain-A pragmatic study.Health science reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Cervical nerve root compression can lead to radiculopathy in the arm. Some studies have reported low accuracy in determining the responsible nerve root in both cervical and lumbar regions. This prospective, observational, pragmatic study aimed to determine the accuracy of the clinical evaluation relative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in patients with arm radiculopathy. Methods: Patients with neck pain and neck-related arm pain referred to a spine unit underwent a standard clinical neurological examination and cervical spine MRI. The clinical examination required a judgment of the most likely cervical root involved, including the side. The Interobserver reproducibility was tested. Using MRI, the most likely nerve root involved according to radiology was assessed. Results: Eighty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. The Interobserver reproducibility between clinical evaluators was 58%, with a modest Conclusions: In cervical radiculopathy, the clinical-neurological examination diagnosed the same in 31% or an adjacent cervical root in 28% of the patients in relation to the most affected cervical root on MRI.
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.