MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753629539 · doi:10.1177/2192568217701914

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Recommendations for Patients With Mild, Moderate, and Severe Disease and Nonmyelopathic Patients With Evidence of Cord Compression

2017· article· en· W2753629539 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Fehlings, Lindsay Tetreault, K. Daniel Riew, James Middleton, Bizhan Aarabi, Paul M. Arnold, Darrel S. Brodke, Anthony S. Burns, Simon Carette, Robert HC Chen, Kazuhiro Chiba, Joseph R. Dettori, Julio C. Furlan, James S. Harrop, Langston T. Holly, Sukhvinder Kalsi‐Ryan, Mark Kotter, Brian Kwon, Allan R. Martin, James Milligan, Hiroaki Nakashima, Narihito Nagoshi, John M. Rhee, Anoushka Singh, Andrea C. Skelly, Sumeet Sodhi, Jefferson R. Wilson, Albert Yee, Jeffrey C. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCentre for Family MedicineSt. Michael's HospitalWestern UniversityHealth Sciences CentreVancouver General HospitalToronto Western HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersAOSpineNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCervical Spine Research Society
KeywordsMedicineMyelopathySpinal cord compressionGuidelineDiseaseNatural historyIntervention (counseling)SurgeryEvidence-based medicinePhysical therapyCordRehabilitationSpinal cordInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Guideline development. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to develop guidelines that outline how to best manage (1) patients with mild, moderate, and severe myelopathy and (2) nonmyelopathic patients with evidence of cord compression with or without clinical symptoms of radiculopathy. METHODS: Five systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to synthesize evidence on disease natural history; risk factors of disease progression; the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of nonoperative and surgical management; the impact of preoperative duration of symptoms and myelopathy severity on treatment outcomes; and the frequency, timing, and predictors of symptom development. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used this information, and their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the management of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). RESULTS: Our recommendations were as follows: (1) "We recommend surgical intervention for patients with moderate and severe DCM." (2) "We suggest offering surgical intervention or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation for patients with mild DCM. If initial nonoperative management is pursued, we recommend operative intervention if there is neurological deterioration and suggest operative intervention if the patient fails to improve." (3) "We suggest not offering prophylactic surgery for non-myelopathic patients with evidence of cervical cord compression without signs or symptoms of radiculopathy. We suggest that these patients be counseled as to potential risks of progression, educated about relevant signs and symptoms of myelopathy, and be followed clinically." (4) "Non-myelopathic patients with cord compression and clinical evidence of radiculopathy with or without electrophysiological confirmation are at a higher risk of developing myelopathy and should be counselled about this risk. We suggest offering either surgical intervention or nonoperative treatment consisting of close serial follow-up or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation. In the event of myelopathic development, the patient should be managed according to the recommendations above." CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines will promote standardization of care for patients with DCM, decrease the heterogeneity of management strategies and encourage clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations473
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207