ReviewFrontiers in neurology2026
"Internal carotid artery-type cervical spondylosis" is not supported as an independent subtype: a perspective on diagnostic classification and clinical differentiation.
Review in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical spondylosis is a common degenerative disorder, yet its diagnostic boundaries may be inappropriately expanded when nonspecific symptoms such as dizziness coexist with age-related cervical imaging changes. This Perspective evaluates the hypothetical concept of "internal carotid artery-type cervical spondylosis" and whether it qualifies as an independent clinical subtype. Using an adapted validity-utility framework, the proposed entity was assessed according to five criteria: a specific anatomical relationship, a reproducible pathophysiological mechanism, a recognizable clinical phenotype, supportive imaging or ancillary evidence, and independent diagnostic utility. Unlike the vertebral artery, the cervical internal carotid artery has no consistent anatomical relationship with routine degenerative cervical structures. Rare bony-carotid conflicts may occur, but these are anomaly-driven vascular lesions and do not establish a general degenerative subtype. Nonspecific dizziness does not localize pathology to the internal carotid artery, whereas focal anterior-circulation symptoms are better explained by established carotid or cerebrovascular disorders. Clinically, transient monocular visual loss, aphasia, hemiparesis, focal cortical deficits, or new unilateral head or neck pain with partial Horner syndrome or cranial nerve findings should prompt urgent vascular or stroke-oriented evaluation. Current evidence therefore does not support "internal carotid artery-type cervical spondylosis" as an independent subtype. Maintaining clear diagnostic boundaries may reduce mislabeling and improve patient safety.
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.