SynthesisBMC neurology2026
Cervical compressive myelopathy in Africa: a systematic review of clinical presentation, diagnostic pathways, surgical management, and outcomes.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDegenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the leading cause of non-traumatic cervical spinal cord dysfunction globally; however, broader cervical compressive myelopathies remain poorly characterised across African settings. This systematic review evaluated the clinical presentation, diagnostic pathways, surgical management, and outcomes of cervical myelopathy across African settings.
methodsThis review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, African Journals Online (AJOL), Google Scholar, and African neurosurgical registries were searched from inception to 25 December 2025. Both degenerative and non-degenerative compressive cervical myelopathies were eligible where cervical cord compression was clearly described. Data were synthesised narratively because of substantial methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal tools.
resultsFifteen studies involving 315 patients from four African sub-regions met inclusion criteria. Degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy constituted the predominant aetiology across major surgical cohorts, although several studies included mixed myelopathy populations or rarer compressive causes such as fluorosis-associated OPLL and CPPD-related ligamentum flavum calcification. Patients consistently presented late, with prolonged symptom duration (12-48 months) and advanced neurological impairment, commonly Nurick grade ≥ 3. Motor deficits and gait disturbance were the dominant presenting features, while sphincter dysfunction reflected advanced disease. Diagnostic pathways evolved from plain radiography and myelography to increasing MRI utilisation; however, MRI scarcity remained a major barrier contributing to delayed diagnosis. Surgical decompression, via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or posterior laminectomy, produced neurological improvement in 50-97.6% of patients. Earlier presentation and lower preoperative severity were the strongest predictors of favourable recovery. No included study demonstrated low overall risk of bias.
conclusionCervical myelopathy in Africa is characterised by delayed presentation and limited diagnostic resources, yet surgical decompression appears feasible and is associated with neurological improvement in reported cohorts. Expansion of MRI access, earlier referral systems, and prospective multicentre registries are required to improve outcomes and strengthen the evidence base.
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.