Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40188056›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025

Neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy: a scoping review.

Marzia Stella Yousif, Giuseppe Occhipinti, Filippo Bianchini, Daniel Feller, Annina B Schmid, Firas Mourad

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07375823 (Effects of Electrical Muscle Stimulation Applied Concurrently With Active Movement and Exercise Therapy in Cervical Radiculopathy), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT07375823 nacompletednot on this map

Effects of Electrical Muscle Stimulation Applied Concurrently With Active Movement and Exercise Therapy in Cervical Radiculopathy: A Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorEuropean University of LefkeRan2025 to 2026Enrolled50ConditionsCervical Radiculopathy, Cervical Radicular Pain, Neck Pain, NumbnessArmsExercise Therapy, Superimposition of electrical muscle stimulation on active movement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

6 authors.

Marzia Stella YousifFaculty of Medicine and Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences and Translation Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe OcchipintiPhysiotherapist Unit, H.T. Clinic, Ragusa, Italy.
Filippo BianchiniOccupational Therapy and Ergonomics Unit, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri IRCCS, Montescano, 27040, Italy.
Daniel FellerProvincial Agency for Health of the Autonomous Province of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Annina B SchmidNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Oxford University, Oxford, OX39DU, UK.
Firas MouradDepartment of Health, LUNEX University of Applied Sciences, 50, Avenue du Parc des Sports, Differdange, 4671, Luxembourg. firas.mourad@me.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo diagnose cervical radiculopathy according to the International Association for the Study of Pain definition, signs of neurological deficits must be examined with the neurological examination. However, the diagnostic accuracy of the standard neurological examination remains unclear, and no clear recommendations exist about standard components. Therefore, the objectives of this review are to map the research about the diagnostic accuracy, components, and performance of the neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy.

methodPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cinhal, DiTA databases were searched up to February 23rd, 2024. Additional studies were identified through screening reference lists of the included studies. Studies on neurological examination procedures and their diagnostic accuracy for cervical radiculopathy were included.

resultsFrom an initial 12,365 records, 6 articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles were cross-sectional studies and compared the neurological examination with electrodiagnostic tests or magnetic resonance imaging. Reduced tendon reflexes were found to be most specific (81% (95% CI 69-89%) to 99% (95% CI not reported)), while somatosensation testing was least sensitive (25% (95% CI 12-38%; -LR 0.84) to 52% (95% CI 30-74%)). Taking all components into account resulted in higher specificity (98% (95% CI not reported) to 99% (95% CI 95-100%)) but lower sensitivity (7% (95% CI not reported) to 14% (95% CI 5-16%)) compared to electrodiagnostic tests.

conclusionsWe found varying operational definitions of radiculopathy, suboptimal reference standards, and great heterogeneity in the neurological examination procedure and its diagnostic accuracy. Future research should address these issues to establish the clinical utility of the neurological examination for cervical radiculopathy. PROTOCOL: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.22.23290194 .

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraeNeurologic ExaminationRadiculopathyCross-Sectional StudiesElectrodiagnosisHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingSensitivity and SpecificityDermatomesEntrapment neuropathyMyotomesNeck painNeurological examinationRadiculopathyReflex

Identifiers

PMID40188056
PMCPMC11971784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.