Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Review of the Diagnosis and Management of Malignant Extradural Spinal Cord Compression: The Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative‘s Neuro-Oncology Disease Site Group

Loblaw, D. Andrew, Perry, James, Chambers, Alexandra, Laperriere, Normand J.·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: This systematic review describes the diagnosis and management of adult patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of extradural malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC). Methods: MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to January 2004 using the following terms: spinal cord compression, nerve compression syndromes, spinal cord neoplasms, clinical trial, meta-analysis, and systematic review. Results: Symptoms for MSCC include sensory changes, autonomic dysfunction, and back pain; however, back pain was not predictive of MSCC. The sensitivity and specificity for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) range from 0.44 to 0.93 and 0.90 to 0.98, respectively, in the diagnosis of MSCC. The sensitivity and specificity for myelography range from 0.71 to 0.97 and 0.88 to 1.00, respectively. A randomized study detected higher ambulation rates in patients with MSCC who received high-dose dexamethasone before radiotherapy (RT) compared with patients who did not receive corticosteroids before RT (81% v 63% at 3 months, respectively; P = .046). There is no direct evidence that supports or refutes the type of surgery patients should have for the treatment of MSCC, whether surgical salvage should be attempted if patient is progressing on or shortly after RT, and whether patients with spinal instability should be treated with surgery. Conclusion: Patients with symptoms of MSCC should be managed to minimize treatment delay. MRI is the preferred imaging technique. Treatment for patients with MSCC should consider pretreatment ambulatory status, comorbidities, technical surgical factors, the presence of bony compression and spinal instability, potential surgical complications, potential RT reactions, and patient preferences.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2005.00.067

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 325

Metadata

Authors
Loblaw, D. A., Perry, J., Chambers, A., & Laperriere, N. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-03-20
Volume
23
Issue
9
Pages
2028-2037
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W4236195741
Cited by
325
References
10
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Review of the Diagnosis and Management of Malignant Extradural Spinal Cord Compression: The Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative‘s Neuro-Oncology Disease Site Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.00.067
The paper
Loblaw, D. A., Perry, J., Chambers, A., & Laperriere, N. J. (2005). Systematic Review of the Diagnosis and Management of Malignant Extradural Spinal Cord Compression: The Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative‘s Neuro-Oncology Disease Site Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.00.067

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.