Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24009695›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2013

Meta-analysis of pre-clinical studies of early decompression in acute spinal cord injury: a battle of time and pressure.

Peter E Batchelor, Taryn E Wills, Peta Skeers, Camila R Battistuzzo, Malcolm R Macleod, David W Howells, Emily S Sena

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Traumatic bilateral cervical facet dislocation:a comprehensive review and evidence-based treatment algorithm.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Early Decompression in Acute Spinal Cord Injury : Review and Update.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter E BatchelorFlorey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Taryn E Wills
Peta Skeers
Camila R Battistuzzo
Malcolm R Macleod
David W Howells
Emily S Sena
Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health · AUUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/L000970/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of early decompression in the management of acute spinal cord injury (SCI) remains contentious despite many pre-clinical studies demonstrating benefits and a small number of supportive clinical studies. Although the pre-clinical literature favours the concept of early decompression, translation is hindered by uncertainties regarding overall treatment efficacy and timing of decompression.

methodsWe performed meta-analysis to examine the pre-clinical literature on acute decompression of the injured spinal cord. Three databases were utilised; PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Embase. Our inclusion criteria consisted of (i) the reporting of efficacy of decompression at various time intervals (ii) number of animals and (iii) the mean outcome and variance in each group. Random effects meta-analysis was used and the impact of study design characteristics assessed with meta-regression.

resultsOverall, decompression improved behavioural outcome by 35.1% (95%CI 27.4-42.8; I(2)=94%, p<0.001). Measures to minimise bias were not routinely reported with blinding associated with a smaller but still significant benefit. Publication bias likely also contributed to an overestimation of efficacy. Meta-regression demonstrated a number of factors affecting outcome, notably compressive pressure and duration (adjusted r(2)=0.204, p<0.002), with increased pressure and longer durations of compression associated with smaller treatment effects. Plotting the compressive pressure against the duration of compression resulting in paraplegia in individual studies revealed a power law relationship; high compressive forces quickly resulted in paraplegia, while low compressive forces accompanying canal narrowing resulted in paresis over many hours.

conclusionThese data suggest early decompression improves neurobehavioural deficits in animal models of SCI. Although much of the literature had limited internal validity, benefit was maintained across high quality studies. The close relationship of compressive pressure to the rate of development of severe neurological injury suggests that pressure local to the site of injury might be a useful parameter determining the urgency of decompression.

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalPublication BiasSpinal Cord InjuriesTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24009695
PMCPMC3751840
OpenAlexW2162565609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.