<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>18(5)</volume><submitter>Mustafa MA</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Study design&lt;/h4>Systematic review.&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>To conduct a systematic review identifying existing definitions of cauda equina syndrome (CES) and time to surgery in the literature for patients with CES.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and trial registries were searched from October 1st, 2016, to 30th December 2022, and combined with articles identified from a previous systematic review by the same authors (studies published 1990-2016).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 110 studies (52,008 patients) were included. Of these only 16 (14.5%) used established definitions in defining CES, including Fraser criteria (n = 6), British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) (n = 5), Gleave and MacFarlane (n </pubmed_abstract><journal>PloS one</journal><pagination>e0285006</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10159340</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Definition and surgical timing in cauda equina syndrome-An updated systematic review.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC10159340</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Gillespie CS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Islim AI</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wilby M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mustafa MA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Richardson GE</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Clark S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Srikandarajah N</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Definition and surgical timing in cauda equina syndrome-An updated systematic review.</name><description>&lt;h4>Study design&lt;/h4>Systematic review.&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>To conduct a systematic review identifying existing definitions of cauda equina syndrome (CES) and time to surgery in the literature for patients with CES.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and trial registries were searched from October 1st, 2016, to 30th December 2022, and combined with articles identified from a previous systematic review by the same authors (studies published 1990-2016).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 110 studies (52,008 patients) were included. Of these only 16 (14.5%) used established definitions in defining CES, including Fraser criteria (n = 6), British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) (n = 5), Gleave and MacFarlane (n </description><dates><release>2023-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2023</publication><modification>2025-04-27T03:17:15.152Z</modification><creation>2025-04-06T18:46:28.868Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC10159340</accession><cross_references><pubmed>37141301</pubmed><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0285006</doi></cross_references></HashMap>