SynthesisSpinal cord2025
Rehabilitation for degenerative cervical myelopathy: systematic review and scoping review of UK patient information.
Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Decompression: Successes and Failures in the Modern Care of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.Neurology international · 2026Article
- The effect of postoperative rehabilitation on outcomes in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM): A systematic review.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Prehabilitation in degenerative cervical myelopathy: An underexplored opportunity to optimize outcomes.Brain & spine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic Literature Review & Patient-Information Scoping Review
objectivesTo assess the evidence on prehabilitation and post-operative rehabilitation interventions for people undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and to determine what publicly accessible information is provided to patients from the NHS surrounding DCM surgery.
methodsA systematic literature review was searched from inception to 19 May 2025. Studies reporting pain, function, disability or quality of life for prehabilitation or post-operative rehabilitation interventions for people undergoing DCM surgery were eligible. Downs and Black appraisal tool was used to assess study quality. Data were analysed in a narrative analysis. Secondary, a review of UK NHS Patient Information Documents (PID) was searched using a Google platform assessment. PID reporting prehabilitation or post-operative information for people awaiting DCM surgery were included. The type of information being provided were extracted and descriptive statistics were used to report frequency of information provision.
resultsFrom 5218 screened studies, six studies (n = 685) met the eligibility criteria. The evidence was low to moderate in quality. Rehabilitation offered demonstrated improved clinical outcomes but there was limited evidence compared to non-rehabilitation or superiority between different rehabilitation strategies. The PID review identified 38 documents. This indicates education and guidance is commonly offered on returning to work (68%), driving (76%) and normal activities of daily living (63%).
conclusionThere remains uncertainty on what should be and is offered to patients with DCM in respect to prehabilitation or post-operative rehabilitation. Robust clinical trial evidence on rehabilitation approaches for this population is needed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42024604184).
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.