Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27037920›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2016

The role of specialist units to provide focused care and complication avoidance following traumatic spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

Monish M Maharaj, Jarred A Hogan, Kevin Phan, Ralph J Mobbs

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pituitary neuroendocrine tumors: a model for neuroendocrine tumor classification.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
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

4 authors.

Monish M MaharajFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. monish.maharaj@gmail.com.
Jarred A HoganFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Kevin PhanFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Ralph J MobbsFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCurrent recommendations for traumatic spinal cord injury treatment recommend immediate transfer to a spinal injury unit (SIU) where available following patient stabilisation. Although transfer is dependent on a variety of factors, the largest review was unable to justify implementation of such units on the basis of insufficient and lack of quality data in favour of care at the SIU as opposed to non-SIU centres. Our study sought to investigate: are subspecialty spinal injury units (SIUs) able to provide superior care compared with traditional trauma/rehab units? Is the standard of care of acute spinal cord injured patients to be managed in SIU's?

methodA literature search was conducted across five major databases using the key terms: "spinal cord injury" AND "Spinal Injury Unit" OR "spinal rehabilitation" OR "spinal injury centre" OR "specialist care" OR "care requirements."

resultsAfter review of over 500 studies, only 9 met inclusion criteria, 3 of which were past reviews. There were no relevant RCT's obtained. Standardised roles of global SIU units are needed to deliver equitable and high quality care as current evidence demonstrates variable standards of care and service (mean LOS range: 16-174 days). There is low quality evidence supporting earlier admission into SIU units being associated with improved neurological outcome, complication rates and reduced LOS, despite variations in the definition of "early admission" across studies.

conclusionsOur review demonstrates a lack of standardisation within SIU on a global scale, with significantly different outcomes reported across published studies. New and higher quality evidence directly comparing SIU to non-SIU based care is required. Earlier transfer (<24 h) to SIU following initial injury and stabilisation is advised.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareQuality of Health CareTrauma CentersHospitalizationHumansSpinal Cord InjuriesSpecialist careSpinal cord injurySpinal injury centreSpinal injury unitSpinal rehabilitationTrauma

Identifiers

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.