Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17369517›Full record

Trial reportNeurorehabilitation and neural repair

Comparison of speeds used for the 15.2-meter and 6-minute walks over the year after an incomplete spinal cord injury: the SCILT Trial.

H Barbeau, R Elashoff, D Deforge, J Ditunno, M Saulino, B H Dobkin

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

H BarbeauMcGill University/Institut de Readaptation de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
R Elashoff
D Deforge
J Ditunno
M Saulino
B H Dobkin
Magee Rehabilitation Hospital · USMcGill University · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

WESTERN REHABILITATION RESEARCH NETWORKR24HD039629 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ANDERSON, MARJORIE E · 2000 to 2004
$4.8M
LOCOMOTOR THERAPY TRIAL FOR SPINAL CORD INJURYU01HD037439 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DOBKIN, BRUCE HARVEY · 1999 to 2003
$3.3M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD37439NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD039629NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD39629NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD037439
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimed walking speed for 6 to 15 m and the distance walked in 2 to 12 minutes are frequently used outcome measures in rehabilitation trials, presumably reflecting different aspects of walking ability. The database from the Spinal Cord Injury Locomotor Trial (SCILT), which tested 2 interventions for mobility upon admission for initial rehabilitation of an incomplete traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), was used to compare the walking speed employed for each test.

methodsFrom 66 to 70 patients with upper motor neuron lesions from C-5 to T-10 performed a 15.2-m and a 6-minute walk as fast as the patient deemed safe at 3 months (end of the trial intervention) and 6 and 12 months after entry. The means, standard errors, and quartiles were calculated for the speed used for each task.

resultsThe mean speed for the 15.2-m walk did not differ from that used for the 6-minute walk at 3 and 6 months but was significantly faster at 12 months. Differences became apparent at each assessment in patients in the highest quartiles (>1.0 m/s) for the 15.2-m walk. Their speed was from 14% to 24% higher than the speed used for the 6-minute walk.

conclusionThe speed of the 15.2-m walk as a measure of walking ability compared to the distance walked in 6 minutes may not represent separable domains of mobility. Differences were apparent only in the most highly functional patients, who could ambulate in the community. Any difference in the walking speed used for these 2 tasks does not make enough of a clinical distinction to encourage including both a 6-minute walk and a 15.2-m walk as outcome measures in clinical trials of locomotor interventions for SCI.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationWalkingChronic DiseaseGaitGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansRecovery of FunctionSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID17369517
PMCPMC4067131
OpenAlexW2132223945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.