Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39803086›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Management of Cervical Spine Fractures and Injuries: A Literature Review.

Sanjeevi Bharadwaj, Subasri Balasubramanian

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sanjeevi BharadwajTrauma and Orthopaedics, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Subasri BalasubramanianEmergency Medicine, West Midlands Deanery, Birmingham, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical spine injuries are one of the most common injuries of the spine that are encountered in the emergency department (ED). More than half of all spinal injuries presenting to the ED involve the cervical spine, with nearly half of them resulting from road traffic accidents. The majority of spinal cord injuries are found to occur in males of younger age groups, with almost half of them resulting in incomplete spinal cord injuries. The initial assessment of a patient with a suspected cervical spine fracture would include an Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS)-guided documented assessment of the patient involving a detailed, meticulous primary survey followed by a documented assessment of the patient through a secondary survey. Initial management of the cervical spine fracture begins at the scene of injury with prehospital care, which involves immobilisation of the cervical spine with "triple immobilisation" followed by initial airway management in the ED while maintaining in-line neck stabilisation, thereby minimising the neck movements. Neurological assessment according to the impairment scale and imaging in alert and stable patients is done based on established guidelines. However, a CT scan is the gold standard modality of imaging for suspected cervical spine fractures. All patients with a significant mechanism of injury must be assumed to have an unstable injury to their spine until proven otherwise according to British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Trauma (BOAST) guidelines.

Indexed as

british orthopaedic association standard for trauma (boast)british orthopaedic association standard for trauma guidelines for spinal clearancecervical spine fracturecervical spine injuriesinternational standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (isncsci) impairment scalenational emergency x-radiography utilization study group (nexus) guidelines or the canadian c-spine rule (ccr)

Identifiers

PMID39803086
PMCPMC11725226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.