ReviewNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2013
Tetraplegia or paraplegia with brachial diparesis? What is the most appropriate designation for the motor deficit in patients with lower cervical spinal cord injury?
Review in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Posterior indirect reduction and pedicle screw fixation without laminectomy for Denis type B thoracolumbar burst fractures with incomplete neurologic deficit.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2015Trial
- A novel 3D region-based speller paradigm for BCI systems.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Optimization of Transspinal Stimulation Applications for Motor Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury: Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Motor exam of patients with spinal cord injury: a terminological imbroglio.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The authors seek to clarify the nomenclature used to describe cervical spinal cord injuries, particularly the use of the terms "tetraplegia", "quadriplegia", "quadriparesis", "tetraparesis", "incomplete quadriplegia" or "incomplete tetraplegia" when applied to patients with lower cervical cord injuries. A review of the origin of the terms and nomenclature used currently to describe the neurological status of patients with SCI in the literature was performed. The terms "tetraplegia", "quadriplegia", "quadriparesis", "tetraparesis", "incomplete quadriplegia" or "incomplete tetraplegia" have been used very often to describe patients with complete lower cervical SCI despite the fact that the clinical scenario is all the same for most of these patients. Most of these patients have total loss of the motor voluntary movements of their lower trunk and inferior limbs, and partial impairment of movement of their superior limbs, preserving many motor functions of the proximal muscles of their arms (superior limbs). A potentially better descriptive term may be "paraplegia with brachial diparesis". In using the most appropriate terminology, the patients with lower cervical SCI currently referred as presenting with "tetraplegia", "quadriplegia", "quadriparesis", "tetraparesis", "incomplete quadriplegia" or "incomplete tetraplegia", might be better described as having "paraplegia with brachial diparesis".
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.