SynthesisScientific reports2022
Ascent of the conus medullaris in human foetuses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fetal imaging approach to spinal dysraphism diagnosis.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Surgical Treatment of Tethered Cord Syndrome by Release of Filum Terminalis: A Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify when the ascent of the conus medullaris occurs in human foetuses considering differences in evaluation methods and sample characteristics. Five databases were searched for relevant articles using different combinations of keywords. Article selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The variables were distributed into four groups according to the gestational age of the specimens: I (13-18 weeks); II (19-25 weeks); III (26-32 weeks); IV (33 weeks to the probable date of birth). Eighteen articles were included. The majority used imaging exams as the evaluation method. Cadaveric dissections were reported in the remaining articles. Only morphological studies were included in the meta-analysis. Significant ascent occurs between groups I and III as well as groups II and IV. Despite the considerable heterogeneity among the studies included in the present review, the findings enabled the determination that the conus medullaris reaches its normal birth level by the 26th week. Further analyses should be performed based on nationality and ethnicity to diminish the heterogeneity of the data.
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.