ArticleScientific reports2022
Validity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the primary spinal cord tumors in routine clinical setting.
Article in Scientific 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Intraspinal extradural tumors].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Toward an optimized PET reconstruction protocol for spinal cord: superiority of OSEM with TOF and PSF.EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Lumbar round cell sarcoma in a 10-week-old rottweiler puppy.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Internal iliac artery aneurysm masquerading as a sciatic nerve schwannoma: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2023Article
- Spinal cord diffuse midline glioma with postoperative acute swelling: A case report and review of literature.Surgical neurology international · 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MRI is the primary diagnostic modality for spinal cord tumors. However, its validity has never been vigorously scrutinized in daily routine clinical practice, where MRI tissue diagnosis is usually not a single one but multiple ones with several differential diagnoses. Here, we aimed to assess the validity of MRI in terms of predicting the pathology and location of the tumor in routine clinical settings. We analyzed 820 patients with primary spinal cord tumors, who have a pathological diagnosis and location in the operation record which were confirmed. We modified traditional measures for validity based upon a set of diagnoses instead of a single diagnosis. Sensitivity and specificity and positive and negative predictabilities were evaluated for the tumor location and pathology. For tumor location, 456 were intradural extramedullary; 165 were intramedullary, and 156 were extradural. The overall sensitivity and specificity were over 90.0%. However, the sensitivity became lower when the tumor resided simultaneously in two spaces such as in the intradural-and-extradural or intramedullary-and-extramedullary space (54.6% and 30.0%, respectively). Most common pathology was schwannoma (n = 416), followed by meningioma (114) and ependymoma (87). Sensitivities were 93.3%, 90.4%, and 89.7%, respectively. Specificities were 70.8%, 82.9%, and 76.0%. In rare tumors such as neurofibromas, and diffuse midline gliomas, the sensitivity was much lower (less than 30%). For common locations and pathologies, the validity of MRI is generally acceptable. However, for rare locations and pathologies, MRI diagnosis still needs some improvement.
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.