ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2011
Changes in electrical perceptual threshold in the first 6 months following spinal cord injury.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of the electrosacrogram (ESG): a digital point-of-care tool for real-time neuro-sacral assessment after spinal cord injury.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Afferent input and sensory function after human spinal cord injury.Journal of neurophysiology · 2018Review
- Development and validation of a bowel-routine-based self-report questionnaire for sacral sparing after spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2017Observational
- Time-Dependent Discrepancies between Assessments of Sensory Function after Incomplete Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of neurotrauma · 2017Article
- Discrepancies between clinical assessments of sensory function and electrical perceptual thresholds after incomplete chronic cervical spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the use of electrical perceptual threshold (EPT) testing to follow the natural history of sensory progression after complete and incomplete acute spinal cord injury (SCI) and to compare EPT changes with the American Spinal Injuries Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS). STUDY
designProspective descriptive study.
methodsASIA examination and EPT testing was performed on 17 patients (7 AIS A, 10 AIS B-D), within 1, 3, and 6 months after acute SCI. EPT assessment was carried out bilaterally at ASIA sensory points from 2 levels above the neurological level to all levels below, including the sacral segments. Comparisons of EPT values above, at, and below the SCI were made at the three time points as well as comparisons of EPT data to ASIA assessment.
resultsThere was poor agreement between lowest normal level on EPT and ASIA assessment. Over time, EPTs tended to deteriorate above and at the ASIA level in AIS A patients with modest changes below the neurological level of injury (NLI), mainly where EPTs correlated with the zone of partial preservation. Sacral sparing was detected in one patient with EPT testing, but not with ASIA assessment. AIS B-D patients showed improvement at the ASIA level and extensive changes, both improvement and deterioration, below the NLI.
conclusionEPT testing has sufficient sensitivity to detect subclinical changes in sensory function as early as the first month post-SCI, which is not apparent in ASIA examination. In particular, the testing is able to show abnormalities at and around the injury site for both complete and incomplete SCI. In addition, EPT allows for the detection and monitoring of alterations, both improvements and deterioration, in the abnormal range of sensation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.