Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25420495›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord2015

Diagnostic accuracy of common clinical tests for assessing abdominal muscle function after motor-complete spinal cord injury above T6.

A Bjerkefors, J W Squair, R Malik, T Lam, Z Chen, M G Carpenter

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Spinal cord, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Challenging questions regarding the international standards.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A Bjerkefors1] School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [2] International Collaboration of Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [3] Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden [4] Biomechanics and Motor Control Laboratory, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH), Stockholm, Sweden.
J W Squair1] School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [2] International Collaboration of Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [3] Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden [4] Biomechanics and Motor Control Laboratory, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH), Stockholm, Sweden.
R Malik1] School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [2] International Collaboration of Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
T Lam1] School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [2] International Collaboration of Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Z Chen1] School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [2] International Collaboration of Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
M G Carpenter1] School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [2] International Collaboration of Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CAInternational Collaboration On Repair Discoveries · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designDiagnostic study.

objectivesThe objective of this study was to compare patterns of electromyography (EMG) recordings of abdominal muscle function in persons with motor-complete spinal cord injury (SCI) above T6 and in able-bodied controls, and to determine whether manual examination or ultrasound measures of muscle activation can be accurate alternatives to EMG.

settingResearch center focused on SCI and University laboratory, Vancouver, Canada.

methodsThirteen people with SCI (11 with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A and 2 AIS B; C4-T5), and 13 matched able-bodied participants volunteered for the study. Participants completed trunk tasks during manual examination of the abdominal muscles and then performed maximal voluntary isometric contractions, while EMG activity and muscle thickness changes were recorded. The frequency of muscle responses detected by manual examination and ultrasound were compared with detection by EMG (sensitivity and specificity).

resultsAll individuals with SCI were able to elicit EMG activity above resting levels in at least one abdominal muscle during one task. In general, the activation pattern was task specific, confirming voluntary control of the muscles. Ultrasound, when compared with EMG, showed low sensitivity but was highly specific in its ability to detect preserved abdominal muscle function in persons with SCI. Conversely, manual examination was more sensitive than ultrasound but showed lower specificity.

conclusionThe results from this study confirm preserved voluntary abdominal muscle function in individuals classified with motor-complete SCI above T6 and highlight the need for further research in developing more accurate clinical measures to diagnose the level of trunk muscle preservation in individuals with SCI.

Indexed as

Abdominal MusclesAdultChronic DiseaseElectromyographyFemaleHumansIsometric ContractionMaleMotor ActivityOrgan SizePhysical ExaminationSensitivity and SpecificitySpinal Cord InjuriesUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID25420495
OpenAlexW2032747440

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.