ArticleSICOT-J2023
Characteristics and clinical features of cauda equina syndrome: insights from a study on 256 patients.
Article in SICOT-J, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Posterior epidural migration of thoracic and lumbar disc material: a comprehensive 63-year systematic review with anatomical perspectives.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- GIRFT guidance reduces cauda equina syndrome (CES) related admissions without negatively impacting diagnosis.The neuroradiology journal · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy and impact on sexual function of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of male lumbar disc herniation complicated with cauda equina syndrome.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the frequency, clinical presentation, and etiological factors of cauda equina syndrome (CES). MATERIALS AND
methodThis retrospective study was done on 256 participants, and aimed to analyze the frequency and patterns of clinical presentation in suspected cases of CES. The inclusion criteria included participants aged 18 or older with medical records available for review and having red-flagged symptoms for CES. The study collected information on various factors such as age, gender, confirmation of CES on MRI, neurological deficits, etiological factors, duration of symptoms, and more. The data collected was analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to identify significant variables between MRI-proven CES and suspected CES.
resultsThe mean age was 58.05 ± 19.26 years, with 151 females (58.98%) and 105 males (41.02%). The majority (50.78%) had a neurological deficit, while other symptoms included difficulty initiating micturition or impaired sensation of urinary flow (17.58%), loss of sensation of rectal fullness (3.12%), urinary or faecal incontinence (35.16%), bilateral sciatica (21.88%), neurological symptoms in the lower limbs (25.00%), anaesthesia or any leg weakness (24.22%), and bilateral sciatica as the predominant symptom (21.88%). Symptoms were chronic in 47.27% and acute in 21.88%. The odds of MRI-proven CES increase by 3% per year of age. Neurological deficit was strongly associated with MRI-proven CES (OR = 14.97), while loss of sensation of rectal fullness increased the odds by 10-fold (OR = 10.62).
conclusionCES can present with various symptoms, including the bilateral neurological deficit, urinary and faecal incontinence, and bilateral sciatica, with age, severe bilateral neurological deficit, and loss of sensation of rectal fullness being associated with MRI-proven CES. Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial for better outcomes.
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.