Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35789426›Full record

ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2022

[Postoperative imaging of the musculoskeletal system - spine].

S Schlaeger, J S Kirschke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

S SchlaegerAbteilung für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Neuroradiologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Deutschland. sarah.schlaeger@tum.de.
J S KirschkeAbteilung für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Neuroradiologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Deutschland. jan.kirschke@tum.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging of the postoperative spine intends to answer two main questions: It is used to assess the surgical success and to identify complications. To this end, conventional X‑ray, computer tomography (CT), myelography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are available. The radiologist has to select the appropriate modality for sufficient diagnosis considering the preoperative situation, the performed operation, and existing postoperative symptoms. Particularly, the implantation of foreign material represents a technical challenge in the context of image acquisition. In the radiologist's report, one must differentiate between expected postoperative changes and relevant complications. Close communication with the patients and the referring clinicians is essential. Especially clinical signs of infection, new or progressive neurological deficits and cauda equina and conus medullaris syndromes require an immediate diagnosis to facilitate prompt therapy.

Indexed as

Cauda EquinaSpineTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansMusculoskeletal SystemMyelographySpinal Cord CompressionComplicationsInstrumentationMetal artifact reductionSpine surgeryTreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID35789426
PMCPMC9519694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.