ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Electrodiagnosis in the Evaluation of Clinical Suspicion of Lumbosacral Radiculopathy.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Neurofunctional Assessments in Lumbar Spondylosis: Outcomes After Rehabilitation Treatment.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radiculopathy involves anamnesis, an assessment of sensitivity and strength, diagnostic imaging-usually magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-and electrodiagnostic testing (EDX), typically electromyography (EMG), and electroneurography (ENG). MRI evaluates the structures supporting the spinal cord, while EDX evaluates root functionality. The present study aimed to analyze the concordance of MRI and EDX findings in patients with clinically suspected radiculopathy. Additionally, we investigated the comparison between these two reference tests and various clinical variables and questionnaires. (2) Methods: We designed a prospective epidemiological study of consecutive cases with an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, and double-blind nature following the STROBE guidelines, encompassing 142 patients with clinical suspicion of lumbosacral radiculopathy. (3) Results: Of the sample, 58.5% tested positive for radiculopathy using EDX as the reference test, while 45.8% tested positive using MRI. The comparison between MRI and EDX in the diagnosis of radiculopathy in patients with clinical suspicion was not significant; the overall agreement was 40.8%. Only the years with symptoms were comparatively significant between the positive and negative radiculopathy groups as determined by EDX. (4) Conclusion: The comparison between lumbar radiculopathy diagnoses in patients with clinically suspected pathology using MRI and EDX as diagnostic modalities did not yield statistically significant findings. MRI and EDX are complementary tests assessing different aspects in patients with suspected radiculopathy; degeneration of the structures supporting the spinal cord does not necessarily imply root dysfunction.
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.