Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42587708›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Reply to Kiral, B.S. Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Superior Cluneal Nerve Entrapment: Methodological Considerations. Comment on "Iudicelli et al. The Role of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound in Detecting Superior Cluneal Nerve Entrapment: Biomechanical Insights in Chronic Low Back Pain-A Pilot Study.

Giovanni Iudicelli, Francesco Agostini, Alberto Altarocca, Francesco Ioppolo, Marco Narciso, Marco Conti, Andrea Fisicaro, Alessio Savina, Vincenzo Di Nunno, Massimiliano Mangone and 2 more

Abstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Giovanni IudicelliDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Francesco AgostiniDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Alberto AltaroccaRehabilitation Unit, University Hospital Umberto I, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Francesco IoppoloRehabilitation Unit, University Hospital Umberto I, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Marco NarcisoDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Marco ContiDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Andrea FisicaroDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Alessio SavinaDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo Di Nunno"Azienda ULSS 9 Scaligera", 37122 Verona, Italy.ORCID 0009-0006-0552-4243
Massimiliano MangoneDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Stefano GallettiMusculoskeletal Ultrasound School, Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 40124 Bologna, Italy.
Marco PaoloniDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0947-9711

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We thank Dr. Kiral for a thoughtful and constructive commentary, with which we largely agree. Surrogate biomechanical markers and direct visualisation of the SCN are complementary rather than competing: the markers were intended to extend diagnostic support to the many settings and patients in whom direct visualisation is not easy to achieve, whether for patient-related reasons or because high-resolution equipment and dedicated expertise are not universally available. We agree that these findings are supportive rather than primary diagnostic markers, and that their value may lie in the triad within a clinically pre-selected population rather than in any single sign. The nociceptive-neuropathic distinction the author emphasises is itself one of the central conclusions of our study.

Identifiers

PMID42587708
PMCPMC13463960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.