The Role of Nutrition in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review

A single centre service evaluation of degenerative cervical and thoracic myelopathy

BACKGROUND

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and degenerative thoracic myelopathy (DTM) present with leg, bladder and bowel symptoms. If imaging confirms spinal cord compression both conditions are usually managed surgically. Surgical timing is important in patient management as it affects post-operative recovery and long-term outcomes. This service evaluation aims to explore whether that patients with DTM are more likely to be treated urgently than those with DCM and to examine whether any differences in management are justified.

METHODS

A retrospective service evaluation was registered and approved by the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (CUH) Clinical Audit Department (Clinical Project ID4455 PRN10455). All patients who had undergone surgery for DTM at CUH from January 2015 until April 2022 were included. Comparison was made to a cohort of DCM patients who underwent surgery at CUH from June 2016 to January 2019. Data analysis was conducted in R.

RESULTS

A total of 130 DCM patients and 78 DTM patients were included. Our DCM and DTM patient cohorts had comparable demographics, but DTM patients had fewer spinal levels affected. Despite equivalent disease severity, DTM patients had a shorter time to diagnosis, shorter wait for surgery and were more likely to be operated on as an emergency case.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite comparable demographics and pathophysiology, DTM was diagnosed and managed more quickly than DCM. Better defined diagnostic pathways for degenerative spinal myelopathy may hold opportunities to optimise diagnosis and management, ensuring consistent high quality, efficient and equitable care.

Meeting the Shared Goals of a Student-Selected Component: Pilot Evaluation of a Collaborative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Research methodology is insufficiently featured in undergraduate medical curricula. Student-selected components are designed to offer some research opportunities but frequently fail to meet student or supervisor expectations, such as completion or publication. We hypothesized that a collaborative, educational approach to a systematic review (SR), whereby medical students worked together, may improve student experience and increase success.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to establish whether offering a small team of students the opportunity to take part in the screening phase of SRs led by an experienced postgraduate team could enhance the learning experience of students, overcome the barriers to successful research engagement, and deliver published output.

METHODS

Postgraduate researchers from the University of Cambridge led a team of 14 medical students to work on 2 neurosurgical SRs. One student was appointed as the lead for each SR. All students were provided with training on SR methodology and participated in title and abstract screening using Rayyan software. Students completed prepilot, midscreening, and postscreening questionnaires on their research background, perceptions, knowledge, confidence, and experience. Questions were scored on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).

RESULTS

Of the 14 students involved, 29% (n=4) reported that they had received sufficient training in research methodology at medical school. Positive trends in student knowledge, confidence, and experience of SR methodology were noted across the 3 questionnaire time points. Mean responses to "I am satisfied with the level of guidance I am receiving," "I am enjoying being involved in the SR process," and "I could not gain this understanding of research from passive learning e.g., textbook or lecture" were greater than 8.0 at all time points. Students reported "being involved in this research has made me more likely to do research in the future" (mean 8.57, SD 1.50) and that "this collaborative SR improved my research experience" (mean 8.50, SD 1.56).

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative approach appears to be a potentially useful method of providing students with research experience; however, it requires further evaluation.