SynthesisPloS one2023
Definition and surgical timing in cauda equina syndrome-An updated systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cauda equina syndrome: a structured approach for the higher orthopaedic examination.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Review
- Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy versus physical therapist-led exercise and the risk of cauda equina syndrome in adults with lumbar disc herniation, stenosis, or radiculopathy.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Review
- Clinical Profile of Neurosurgical Consultations from the Emergency Department : A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Development of machine learning models for gait-based classification of incomplete spinal cord injuries and cauda equina syndrome.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review.
objectivesTo conduct a systematic review identifying existing definitions of cauda equina syndrome (CES) and time to surgery in the literature for patients with CES.
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and trial registries were searched from October 1st, 2016, to 30th December 2022, and combined with articles identified from a previous systematic review by the same authors (studies published 1990-2016).
resultsA total of 110 studies (52,008 patients) were included. Of these only 16 (14.5%) used established definitions in defining CES, including Fraser criteria (n = 6), British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) (n = 5), Gleave and MacFarlane (n = 2), and other (n = 3). Most reported symptoms were urinary dysfunction (n = 44, 40%%), altered sensation in the perianal region (n = 28, 25.5%) and bowel dysfunction (n = 20, 18.2%). Sixty-eight (61.8%) studies included details on time to surgery. There was an increase in percentage of studies defining CES published in the last 5 years compared to ones from 1990-2016 (58.6% vs 77.5.%, P = .045).
conclusionsDespite Fraser recommendations, substantial heterogeneity exists in reporting of CES definitions, and a start point for time to surgery, with most authors using self-defined criteria. A consensus is required to define CES and time to surgery, to allow consistency in reporting and study analysis.
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.