ArticleBMJ neurology open2025
Optimising early detection of degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review of quantitative screening tools for primary care.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 2025. 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.
- Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Diagnosis and Its Differentiation from Neurological Mimics, MS and ALS: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Degenerative cervical myelopathy: timing of surgery.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early diagnosis of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is often challenging due to subtle, non-specific symptoms, limited disease awareness and a lack of definitive diagnostic criteria. As primary care physicians are typically the first to encounter patients with early DCM, equipping them with effective screening tools is crucial for reducing diagnostic delays and improving patient outcomes. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of quantitative screening methods for DCM that can be implemented in primary care settings. Methods: A systematic search following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted across PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library up to July 2024 using keywords relevant to DCM screening. Studies were included if they evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of DCM screening tools applicable to primary care settings. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Results: The search identified 14 studies evaluating 18 screening methods for DCM. Questionnaires consistently showed high diagnostic accuracy, with Youden indices exceeding 0.60, while only three out of nine conventional physical performance tests met the same threshold. Sensor-assisted tests, particularly those using advanced technology like finger-wearable gyro sensors, exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy but present challenges related to accessibility and learning curves. Conclusion: This review highlights the potential of quantitative screening methods for early DCM detection in primary care. While questionnaires and conventional tests are effective and accessible, sensor-assisted tests offer greater accuracy but face implementation challenges. A tailored, multifaceted approach is crucial for improving outcomes. Future research should focus on validating these tools in diverse populations and standardising diagnostic criteria.
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.