MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2040773860 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a7f41d

Nonoperative Management of Cervical Myelopathy

2013· review· en· W2040773860 sur OpenAlexaff
John M. Rhee, Mohammed F. Shamji, William Mark Erwin, Richard J. Bransford, S. Tim Yoon, Justin S. Smith, Han Jo Kim, Claire G. Ely, Joseph R. Dettori, Alpesh A. Patel, Sukhvinder Kalsi‐Ryan

Notice bibliographique

RevueSpine · 2013
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Établissements canadiensToronto Western Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMyelopathyAsymptomaticSurgeryEvidence-based medicineRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryCohortPhysical therapySpinal cordInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review investigating the evidence of (1) efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of nonoperative treatment of patients with cervical myelopathy; (2) whether the severity of myelopathy affects outcomes of nonoperative treatment; and (3) whether specific activities or minor injuries are associated with neurological deterioration in patients with myelopathy or asymptomatic stenosis being treated nonoperatively. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little is known about the appropriate role of nonoperative treatment in the management of cervical myelopathy, which is typically considered a surgical disorder. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for articles published between January 1, 1956, and November 20, 2012. We included all articles that compared nonoperative treatments or observation with surgery for patients with cervical myelopathy or asymptomatic cervical cord compression to determine their effects on clinical outcomes, including myelopathy scales (Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Nurick), general health scores (36-Item Short Form Health Survey), and pain (neck and arm). Nonoperative treatments included physical therapy, medications, injections, orthoses, and traction. We also searched for articles evaluating the effect of specific activities or minor trauma in neurological outcomes. Case reports and studies with less than 10 patients in the exposure group were excluded. RESULTS: Of 54 citations identified from our search, 5 studies reported in 6 articles met inclusion criteria. In 1 randomized controlled study, there was low evidence that nonoperative treatment may yield equivalent or better outcomes than surgery in those with mild myelopathy. For moderate to severe myelopathy, nonoperative treatment had inferior outcomes versus surgery in 2 cohort studies, despite the fact that surgically treated patients were worse at baseline. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether specific activities or minor trauma is a risk factor for neurological deterioration in those with myelopathy or asymptomatic cord compression. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of evidence for nonoperative treatment of cervical myelopathy, and further studies are needed to determine its role more definitively. In particular, for the patient with milder degrees of myelopathy, randomized studies comparing nonoperative with surgical treatment would be particularly helpful, as would trials comparing specific types of nonoperative treatments with the natural history of myelopathy. EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATION 1: Because myelopathy is known to be a typically progressive disorder and there is little evidence that nonoperative treatment halts or reverses its progression, we recommend not routinely prescribing nonoperative treatment as the primary modality in patients with moderate to severe myelopathy. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. RECOMMENDATION 2: If there is a role for nonoperative treatment as a primary treatment modality, it may be in the patient with mild myelopathy. However, it is not clear which specific forms of nonoperative treatment provide any benefit compared with the natural history. If nonoperative treatment is selected, we suggest care be taken to observe for neurological deterioration. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Weak. RECOMMENDATION 3: In those with asymptomatic spondylotic cord compression but no clinical myelopathy, the available literature neither supports nor refutes the notion that minor trauma is a risk factor for neurological deterioration. We suggest that patients should be counseled about this uncertainty. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Weak. Recommendation 4: In those with a clinical diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy but no ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, the available studies did not specifically address the issue of neurological deterioration secondary to minor trauma. However, in those with underlying ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, trauma may be more likely to cause worsening of existing myelopathy or even initiate symptoms in those who were previously asymptomatic. We suggest that patients should be counseled about these possibilities. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Weak.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,060

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,043
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0110,006
Bibliométrie0,0080,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,369
Écart entre enseignants0,313 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations162
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSpineMême sujetCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyTravaux en français237 207