↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of outcome in cauda equina syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, August 1999
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Predictors of outcome in cauda equina syndrome
Published in
European Spine Journal, August 1999
DOI 10.1007/s005860050180
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. G. Kennedy, K. E. Soffe, A. McGrath, M. M. Stephens, M. G. Walsh, F. McManus

Abstract

This retrospective review examined the cause, level of pathology, onset of symptoms, time taken to treatment, and outcome of 19 patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES). The minimum time to follow up was 22 months. Logistical regression analysis was used to determine how these factors influenced the eventual outcome. Out of 19 patients, 14 had satisfactory recovery at 2 years post-decompression; 5 patients were left with some residual dysfunction. The mean time to decompression in the group with a satisfactory outcome was 14 h (range 6-24 h) whilst that of the group with the poor outcome was 30 h (range 20-72 h). There was a clear correlation between delayed decompression and a poor outcome (P = 0.023). Saddle hypoaesthesia was evident in all patients. In addition complete perineal anaesthesia was evident in 7/19 patients, 5 of whom developed a poor outcome. Bladder dysfunction was observed in 19/19 patients, with 12/19 regarded as having significant impairment. Of the five patients identified as having a poor overall outcome, all five presented with a significant sphincter disturbance and 4/5 were left with residual sphincter dysfunction. There was a clear correlation between the presence of complete perineal anaesthesia and significant sphincter dysfunction as both univariate and multivariate predictors of a poor overall outcome. The association between a slower onset of CES and a more favourable outcome did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.052). No correlation could be found between initial motor function loss, bilateral sciatica, level or cause of injury as predictors of a poor outcome (P>0.05). CES can be diagnosed early by judicious physical examination, with particular attention to perineal sensation and a history of urinary dysfunction. The most important factors identified in this series as predictors of a favourable outcome in CES were early diagnosis and early decompression.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Other 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 51%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,312,846
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#442
of 5,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,460
of 34,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,258 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 34,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them