Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24796445›Full record

SynthesisSpinal cord2014

Knowledge translation and implementation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

V K Noonan, D L Wolfe, N P Thorogood, S E Park, J T Hsieh, J J Eng, SCIRE Research Team

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Sociotechnical Perspective on Implementing Clinical Video Telehealth for Veterans with Spinal Cord Injuries and Disorders.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
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.

V K Noonan1] Department of Orthopedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [2] Rick Hansen Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
D L Wolfe1] Program of Aging, Rehabilitation and Geriatric Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada [2] Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
N P ThorogoodRick Hansen Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
S E Park1] Department of Orthopedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [2] Rick Hansen Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
J T HsiehProgram of Aging, Rehabilitation and Geriatric Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada.
J J Eng1] Department of Orthopedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [2] International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
SCIRE Research Team

Funding

CIHR 63617-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo conduct a systematic review examining the effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) interventions in changing clinical practice and patient outcomes.

methodsMEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for studies published from January 1980 to July 2012 that reported and evaluated an implemented KT intervention in spinal cord injury (SCI) care. We reviewed and summarized results from studies that documented the implemented KT intervention, its impact on changing clinician behavior and patient outcomes as well as the facilitators and barriers encountered during the implementation.

resultsA total of 13 articles featuring 10 studies were selected and abstracted from 4650 identified articles. KT interventions included developing and implementing patient care protocols, providing clinician education and incorporating outcome measures into clinical practice. The methods (or drivers) to facilitate the implementation included organizing training sessions for clinical staff, introducing computerized reminders and involving organizational leaders. The methodological quality of studies was mostly poor. Only 3 out of 10 studies evaluated the success of the implementation using statistical analyses, and all 3 reported significant behavior change. Out of the 10 studies, 6 evaluated the effect of the implementation on patient outcomes using statistical analyses, with 4 reporting significant improvements. The commonly cited facilitators and barriers were communication and resources, respectively.

conclusionThe field of KT in SCI is in its infancy with only a few relevant publications. However, there is some evidence that KT interventions may change clinician behavior and improve patient outcomes. Future studies should ensure rigorous study methods are used to evaluate KT interventions.

Indexed as

KnowledgeTranslational Research, BiomedicalAnimalsDatabases, FactualHumansSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID24796445
PMCPMC4492721

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.