ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
Cauda equina syndrome-most frequent referral diagnosis to a tertiary spinal centre: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare but critical surgical emergency, with a global incidence of 1-3 cases per 100,000 annually. Despite its rarity, CES has paradoxically emerged as one of the most common referral diagnoses to tertiary spinal centres. This discrepancy between referral rates and the actual prevalence of CES raises concerns about potential over-referral and inefficiencies in clinical pathways. This study aimed to evaluate compliance with national guidelines from the British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) and Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) concerning the streamlined referral pathways and timely magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) utilisation for suspected CES at a major tertiary spinal centre in the UK. Methods: A retrospective audit was conducted on all urgent and emergency CES referrals (n=353) received by a tertiary spinal centre via an electronic referral system over a 15-week period (June-September 2023). Electronic patient records were retrospectively reviewed to assess compliance with national CES pathway standards, particularly the proportion of patients receiving MRI scans prior to referral and within 24 hours of symptom presentation. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS. Results: Of the 353 urgent and emergency referrals, 102 (29%) were for suspected CES, but only 6 cases (1.7%) were confirmed and required surgical intervention. MRI scans were completed before referral in 48% of suspected CES cases, with 94% being within 24 hours of presenting with symptoms. Compliance rates significantly differed between daytime (72%) and out-of-hours referrals (31%). Conclusions: Despite clear national guidelines, adherence to recommended CES pathways remains suboptimal, particularly regarding timely MRI access and pre-referral imaging. Variations in guideline compliance, especially out-of-hours, highlight the need for improved access and workforce adjustments to optimise resource utilisation, reduce inappropriate referrals, and prioritise care for true CES patients.
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.