ArticleBrain & spine2025
Validation of a novel scoring system (Cervical Surgical Score) for the management of degenerative cervical myelopathy.
Article in Brain & spine, 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.
- Emerging advances in spinal cord injury: An introductory overview.Brain & spine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM) is the leading cause of spinal cord dysfunction globally. Surgical intervention is often recommended for moderate to severe cases, but the optimal surgical approach remains debated. Objective: This study aims to validate the novel Cervical Surgical Score (CSS) for managing DCM, aiding surgical decision-making. Methods: A prospective study was conducted in Carlo Besta institute (Milan) from a consecutive series, enrolling 113 patients undergoing surgery for DCM from January 2022 to February 2023. This cohort was compared with 106 patients from a retrospective cohort treated between 2019 and 2021. Results: A total 219 patients (113 prospective, 106 retrospective) were included. The prospective group had an average age of 59.6 years (61 % males), and the retrospective group, 60.7 years (69 % males). The mean CSS score (calculated based on age, level of cervical pathologies, level of myelopathy, extension, site and type of compression, cervical alignment and mJOA) was 12.3 for prospective and 13.18 for retrospective groups. Most prospective cases used an anterior approach compared to retrospective group (88,5 % vs 48.1 %). At two years, neurological recovery (last follow-up mJOA-preoperative mJOA)/(18-preoperative mJOA × 100) was higher in prospective group (68 % vs. 54 %). CSS concordance linked to better recovery rates at one and two years (45 % and 66 % vs. 29 % and 47 %; p < 0,001). High-expertise surgeons (defined based on case-load evaluation scale) achieved higher CSS concordance (64 %) than medium (31 %) and low-expertise surgeons (0 %). Conclusion: The CSS is a reliable tool for optimizing surgical strategies for DCM, enhancing decision-making, and improving patient outcomes.
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.