ReviewEFORT open reviews2026
A narrative review of our developing knowledge about paediatric spondylodiscitis based on existing literature.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2026. 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.
- Differentiating Tuberculous and Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis: Part II: MRI/CT Features, Prediction Models, and the Role of PET/CT-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paediatric spondylodiscitis (SD) is an infection involving the vertebral bodies and adjacent intervertebral discs in populations below 16 years old. It is rarely confined to a single compartment; more often, it spreads to other areas in the spinal column and may cause other infections, such as epidural abscesses, subdural abscesses, septic arthritis of the facet joints, paravertebral abscesses and even meningitis. SD predominantly affects children from 6 to 48 months old, and the lumbar spine seems to be most at risk; no specific markers are currently available for a biological diagnosis of SD. Blood cultures are often negative, and even disc or bone biopsies show limited yields. However, recent advances in nucleic acid amplification tests have laid the foundations for developing and implementing more efficient methods of identifying pathogens in samples. Microbiologically, Kingella kingae dominates in children from 6 to 48 months old, while Staphylococcus aureus is more common in infants under 6 months and in older children. High-throughput sequencing performed on plasma samples (recognised as liquid biopsy) is a promising multi-purpose tool that can detect not only pathogens circulating in the bloodstream but also those emanating from focal infections, something particularly interesting in cases of paediatric SD, where disc sampling is strongly discouraged. Paediatric SD treatments are mainly medical; surgery is rarely indicated, except for abscess drainage, emergency neurological decompression or spinal stabilisation.
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.