ReviewGlobal spine journal2026
Evaluation, Management, and Return-To-Sport Guidelines for Cervical Spine Injuries in Athletes: A Narrative Review.
Review in Global spine journal, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignNarrative review.ObjectivesTo synthesize current evidence on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, classification, evaluation, and imaging of cervical spine injuries (CSI) in athletes and propose a practical framework for return-to-sport (RTS) decision-making.MethodsA review of the most recent and relevant published studies and consensus statements was performed, focusing on athletic cervical spine pathology. Key domains included on-field assessment, imaging modalities, clinical clearance criteria, and sport-specific risk considerations. All literature published in reputable journals, preferably available through well-regarded databases such as Scopus and PubMed, was eligible for inclusion, with preference given to the most recent publications related to any given topic.ResultsThe reviewed literature supports that RTS across CSI types requires resolution of symptoms, normal neurologic examination, restoration of painless cervical range of motion and strength, and radiographic evidence of healing or stability. MRI is consistently recommended for identifying high-risk features such as canal stenosis, cord signal change, or ligamentous disruption. Sport-specific risk stratification is supported by data showing higher reinjury rates in collision sports. Evidence remains heterogeneous, with substantial variation in specialist recommendations.ConclusionsSafe RTS after CSI requires comprehensive clinical and imaging assessment, recognition of sport-specific risks, and shared decision-making to prioritize athlete safety while avoiding unnecessary restrictions.
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.