ArticleCureus2024
Assessment of Anteroposterior Diameter and Interpedicular Distance in the Approximation of Cervical Spinal Canal Area.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale and objectives This study seeks to generate a model based on two linear measurements, anteroposterior (AP) diameter and interpedicular (IPD) distance, to approximate the cervical central canal (CCC) area in a non-pathologic patient population by employing area calculations of shapes such as ellipse, rectangle, and triangle. Secondarily, this study aims to generate second-order approximations (SOAs), using the aforementioned shape approximations, to increase the utility of this linear measurement-based model. Methods The authors reviewed medical and radiographic records of patients aged 18-35 who received computed tomography (CT) imaging of the cervical spine to collect AP diameter, IPD distance, and area of the CCC from C2-3 to C6-7. Subsequently, shape approximations were calculated for each patient at all cervical spine levels. Lastly, SOAs were generated by combining optimal ratios of shape approximations to improve the statistical reliability of approximations. Results The ellipse shows the closest approximation to manual measurements of the individual shape approximations. Percent error analysis demonstrated the superiority of the ellipse, followed by the rectangle, and lastly the triangular approximation. The highest correlation of approximations was observed at C6-7. All individual shape approximations demonstrated statistical differences from manual measurements. SOAs combining ellipse and rectangle measurements demonstrated superior accuracy and were not statistically different from manual measurements. Conclusion Individual shape approximations based on AP diameter and IPD distance show some value as a model for the assessment of the CCC area. SOAs demonstrated greater utility than individual shape approximations and show promise as a linear measurement-based tool to assess the CCC area.
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.