Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38217717›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024

Evolving trends in the surgical, anaesthetic, and intensive care management of acute spinal cord injuries in the UK.

Hasan Asif, Samuel Ern Hung Tsan, Argyro Zoumprouli, Marios C Papadopoulos, Samira Saadoun

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hasan AsifAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Institute, St. George's, University of London, London, SW17 0RE, UK.
Samuel Ern Hung TsanNeurointensive Care Unit, St. George's Hospital, London, SW17 0QT, UK.
Argyro ZoumprouliNeurointensive Care Unit, St. George's Hospital, London, SW17 0QT, UK.
Marios C Papadopoulos *Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Institute, St. George's, University of London, London, SW17 0RE, UK.
Samira Saadoun *Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Institute, St. George's, University of London, London, SW17 0RE, UK. ssaadoun@sgul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5480-5678
St George's, University of London · GBSt George's Hospital · GB

Funding

Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme NIHR 130048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe surveyed the treatment of acute spinal cord injuries in the UK and compared current practices with 10 years ago.

methodsA questionnaire survey was conducted amongst neurosurgeons, neuroanaesthetists, and neurointensivists that manage patients with acute spinal cord injuries. The survey gave two scenarios (complete and incomplete cervical spinal cord injuries). We obtained opinions on the speed of transfer, timing and aim of surgery, choice of anaesthetic, intraoperative monitoring, targets for physiological parameters, and drug treatments.

resultsWe received responses from 78.6% of UK units that manage acute spinal cord injuries (33 neurosurgeons, 56 neuroanaesthetists/neurointensivists). Most neurosurgeons operate within 12 h for incomplete (82%) and complete (64%) injuries. There is a significant shift from 10 years ago, when only 61% (incomplete) and 30% (complete) of neurosurgeons operated within 12 h. The preferred anaesthetic technique in 2022 is total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), used by 69% of neuroanaesthetists. Significantly more intraoperative monitoring is now used at least sometimes, including bispectral index (91%), non-invasive cardiac output (62%), and neurophysiology (73-77%). Methylprednisolone is no longer used by surgeons. Achieving at least 80 mmHg mean arterial blood pressure is recommended by 70% neurosurgeons, 62% neuroanaesthetists, and 75% neurointensivists.

conclusionsBetween 2012 and 2022, there was a paradigm shift in managing acute spinal cord injuries in the UK with earlier surgery and more intraoperative monitoring. Variability in practice persists due to lack of high-quality evidence and consensus guidelines.

Indexed as

AnestheticsSpinal Cord InjuriesCritical CareHumansMethylprednisoloneUnited KingdomAnestheticsMethylprednisoloneAuditIntensive careNeurosurgerySpinal cord injurySurvey

Identifiers

PMID38217717
OpenAlexW4390840374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.