SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Diagnostic criteria utilized for selection of patients for meralgia paresthetica surgery: a systemic review.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Meralgia paresthetica (MP) lacks consensus on diagnostic criteria for surgical candidates. This study reviews the literature to identify the most common criteria for determining MP surgical candidates and their impact on surgical outcomes. A literature search using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar was conducted for MP surgical outcome studies. Studies were evaluated using methodical index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) criteria, and diagnostic criteria were compared. Twenty-one studies were identified with inclusion of 616 surgical results involving decompression or neurectomy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN). The most used diagnostic criteria were patient history (100%), response to LFCN injection (90%), and spinal imaging (57%). Positive outcomes were noted in 84.7% of cases. History and LFCN injection were effective for diagnosing MP, while EMG was useful to rule out other pathologies. The combination of appropriate patient history and positive response to LFCN injection is a common and sufficient diagnostic method to effectively identify MP patients who are likely to benefit from surgical decompression or neurectomy. Additionally, EMG may be useful as a supplemental test to rule out non-MP diagnoses. Level III systematic review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40016533What 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.