Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25366527›Full record

Trial reportSpinal cord2015

Does regular standing improve bowel function in people with spinal cord injury? A randomised crossover trial.

S Kwok, L Harvey, J Glinsky, J L Bowden, M Coggrave, D Tussler

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Spinal cord, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

S Kwok1] John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School/Northern, University of Sydney, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia [2] Spinal Injury Unit, Royal Rehab, Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
L Harvey1] John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School/Northern, University of Sydney, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia [2] Spinal Injury Unit, Royal Rehab, Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
J GlinskyJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School/Northern, University of Sydney, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
J L BowdenJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School/Northern, University of Sydney, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
M Coggrave1] The National Spinal Injuries Centre, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Buckinghamshire, UK [2] Buckinghamshire New University, Buckinghamshire, UK.
D TusslerThe National Spinal Injuries Centre, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Buckinghamshire, UK.
Northern Sydney Local Health District · AUStoke Mandeville Hospital · GBUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designA randomised crossover trial.

objectivesTo determine the effects of a 6-week standing programme on bowel function in people with spinal cord injury.

settingCommunity, Australia and the United Kingdom.

methodsTwenty community-dwelling people with motor complete spinal cord injury above T8 participated in a 16-week trial. The trial consisted of a 6-week stand phase and a 6-week no-stand phase separated by a 4-week washout period. Participants were randomised to one of two treatment sequences. Participants allocated to the Treatment First group stood on a tilt table for 30 min per session, five times per week for 6 weeks and then did not stand for the next 10 weeks. Participants allocated to the Control First group did the opposite: they did not stand for 10 weeks and then stood for 6 weeks. Participants in both groups received routine bowel care throughout the 16-week trial. Assessments occurred at weeks 0, 7, 10 and 17 corresponding with pre and post stand and no-stand phases. The primary outcome was Time to First Stool. There were seven secondary outcomes reflecting other aspects of bowel function and spasticity.

resultsThere were three dropouts leaving complete data sets on 17 participants. The mean (95% confidence interval) between-intervention difference for Time to First Stool was 0 min (-7 to 7) indicating no effect of regular standing on Time to First Stool.

conclusionRegular standing does not reduce Time to First Stool. Further trials are required to test the veracity of some commonly held assumptions about the benefits of regular standing for bowel function.

Indexed as

AdultAustraliaCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient CompliancePostureResidence CharacteristicsSingle-Blind MethodSpinal Cord InjuriesTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25366527
OpenAlexW2030365847

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.