ArticleSAGE open medical case reports2024
Is it myocardial infarction? A case report of C7 cervical radiculopathy with cervical angina.
Article in SAGE open medical case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical radiculopathy refers to the mechanical compression or inflammation of any of the cervical roots which lead to their dysfunction. Male sex, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, manual labor-related occupation or activities are among the possible factors which can predispose or precipitate the occurrence of cervical radiculopathy. A 63 years old male presented with cervicogenic angina which was refractory to painkillers. C7 cervical radiculopathy might present with cervicogenic angina and pose a clinical diagnosis challenge given its similarity in clinical presentation with other clinical conditions like myocardial infarction. Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion to differentiate the two conditions. Nevertheless, ruling out firstly myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism among patients presenting with chest pain is of clinical benefit in terms of morbidity and mortality of a patient. Furthermore, proper and timely physical examination should be emphasized to be conducted to every patient so as to avoid delayed diagnosis and management.
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.