↓ Skip to main content

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…

Overview of attention for article published in Global Spine Journal, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 1,180)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
290 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
293 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
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
Published in
Global Spine Journal, September 2017
DOI 10.1177/2192568217701914
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Guideline development. 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. 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). 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." 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 293 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 11%
Other 30 10%
Researcher 29 10%
Student > Postgraduate 27 9%
Student > Master 19 6%
Other 68 23%
Unknown 87 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 115 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 8%
Neuroscience 17 6%
Unspecified 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Other 25 9%
Unknown 103 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 03 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,675,510
of 25,079,481 outputs
Outputs from Global Spine Journal
#27
of 1,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,238
of 321,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Spine Journal
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,079,481 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,180 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 321,208 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.