ArticleSA journal of radiology2025
Correlation of clinical and radiological findings in patients with spinal trauma at Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital.
Article in SA journal of radiology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Assessment of spinal trauma entails a full neurological examination and radiological assessment to determine the level of spinal cord injury. Objectives: This study aimed to determine if further imaging is always required, whether the clinical picture correlates with imaging results and to compare clinical and radiological prediction accuracy. Method: This retrospective chart review compared and correlated clinical findings with radiological findings in patients with spinal trauma at Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital over a period of 6 years. Demographics and sensitivity and specificity of clinical to imaging correlation with positive predictive ratios were assessed. Results: A total of 290 patients admitted with spinal injury, who received CT and/or MRI, were evaluated. Cervical-spine injuries were common. For predicting abnormal CT findings, the sensitivity of motor and sensory findings was 69.2% with a specificity of 85.4%. The positive predictive value (PPV) of motor and sensory findings was 96.2%. The negative predictive value (NPV) of motor and sensory findings was 34.0%. On MRI, sensitivity for motor and sensory findings was 85.1% for correctly predicting abnormal MRI findings, while the specificity was 52.8%. The PPV of motor and sensory findings was 82.5% with a NPV of 57.6%. Conclusion: In this trauma population, correlation of clinical findings with abnormal CT findings was 84.4% and for MRI findings was 72.3%, indicating that clinical findings alone may not be sufficient to rule out the need for imaging; false negatives could lead to missed or incorrect level of injury diagnoses. Contribution: This study adds to the proof that while clinical findings are reasonably accurate for the determination of neurological spinal cord injury level, both CT and MRI add additional information, making these tests invaluable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.