ArticleEFORT open reviews2025
Degenerative cervical myelopathy: timing of surgery.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward a More Clinically Actionable Strategy for Surgical Site Infection After Posterior Cervical Fusion.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Clinical and imaging factors associated with paraplegia at presentation in thoracic spinal tuberculosis.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Progressive Acquired Cervical Deformity With Myelopathy Managed by Occipitocervicothoracic Fusion: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Application and performance of deep learning models for the automated diagnosis of cervical central spinal stenosis on MRI: a systematic review.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Postoperative residual neuropathic pain prevents return to work after cervical OPLL surgery: nationwide multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Laminectomy and laminoplasty hybrid decompression versus laminectomy with lateral mass screw fixation for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a propensity score-matched study.International orthopaedics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the growing burden of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), consensus on the optimal timing of surgical intervention remains lacking, especially for patients with mild symptoms or asymptomatic cord compression or in the context of recent trauma. Different scores, such as the mJOA, Nurick scale and NDI are commonly used to classify disease severity, but guidelines for managing these patients do not provide a clear framework for intervention timing. Materials and methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature on the optimal timing of surgical intervention for DCM, using PubMed to identify relevant studies. The search was focused on surgical and non-operative management, clinical and radiological assessments, biomarkers and emerging technologies. The selected papers were reviewed for relevance and quality, with guidance from a senior author. Results: The initial search identified 6,705 articles, which were narrowed down to 136 relevant studies after applying filters for study type and clinical focus. A final selection of 87 papers was categorized by topics and the findings were synthesized to highlight trends, challenges and knowledge gaps in surgical timing for DCM. Focus of the study: This review article examines strategies for determining the optimal timing for surgery in DCM. It explores how radiological signs, clinical indicators and other markers may help identify patients at risk of rapid neurological deterioration, particularly in the 'grey-zone' population (mild symptoms or asymptomatic disease), enabling clinicians to assess correctly different clinical scenarios and to indicate timely surgical intervention.
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.