Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20030559›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurotrauma2011

Assessment of impairment in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury: a systematic review of the literature.

Julio C Furlan, Vanessa Noonan, Anoushka Singh, Michael G Fehlings

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurotrauma, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Tolerability and efficacy of erythropoietin (EPO) treatment in traumatic spinal cord injury: a preliminary randomized comparative trial vs. methylprednisolone (MP).Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2015
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. New Diagnostic and Therapeutic Targets for Spinal Cord Injury: GRN Gene.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Julio C FurlanDepartment of Genetics and Development, Toronto Western Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vanessa Noonan
Anoushka Singh
Michael G Fehlings

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most common primary end-point of the trial on treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is the degree of impairment. The American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Standards have been widely used to assess motor function and pin-prick and light-touch sensory function. In addition, pain assessment is another clinically relevant aspect of the impairment in individuals with SCI. Given this, we sought to systematically review the studies that focused on the psychometric properties of ASIA Standards and all previously used outcome measures of pain in the SCI population in the acute care setting. For the primary literature search strategy, the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were sought out. Subsequently, a secondary search strategy was carried out using the articles listed in the references of meta-analysis, systematic, and non-systematic review articles. Two reviewers (JCF and VN) independently selected the articles that fulfill the inclusion and exclusion, assessed the level of evidence of each article, and appraised the psychometric properties of each instrument. Divergences during those steps were solved by consensus between both reviewers. Of 400 abstracts captured in our primary search strategy on the ASIA Standards, 16 full articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An additional 40 references were obtained from two prior systematic reviews on ASIA Standards. While 45 of 56 of the studies on ASIA Standards provided level 4 evidence, there were 11 level 2b evidence studies. Convergent construct validity (n = 34), reliability (n = 12), and responsiveness (n = 10) were the most commonly studied psychometric properties of the ASIA Standards, but two prior studies examined their content validity. Of the 267 abstracts yielded in our primary search on pain assessment, 24 articles with level 4 evidence fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was no study that examined pain assessment in the acute care setting. While 18 of 24 articles studied an instrument for assessment of pain intensity, the remaining six studies were focused on classifications of pain in the SCI population. In conclusion, the ASIA Standards represent an appropriate instrument to categorize and evaluate spinal cord injured adults over time with respect to their motor and sensory function. Nevertheless, further investigation of the psychometric properties of the ASIA Standards is recommended due to a lack of studies focused on some key elements of responsiveness, including minimal clinically important difference. The visual analog scale (VAS) is the most commonly studied instrument of assessment of pain intensity in the SCI population. However, further investigation is required with regard to its reliability and responsiveness in the SCI population. Our results also suggest that there is no instrument with appropriate psychometric properties for this particular population.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationPain MeasurementHumansPainPsychometricsSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID20030559
PMCPMC3143408

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.