ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2017
Time-Dependent Discrepancies between Assessments of Sensory Function after Incomplete Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.
Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Quantitative electrophysiological assessments as predictive markers of lower limb motor recovery after spinal cord injury: a pilot study with an adaptive trial design.Spinal cord series and cases · 2022Article
- Cerebellar contribution to sensorimotor adaptation deficits in humans with spinal cord injury.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Targeted-Plasticity in the Corticospinal Tract After Human Spinal Cord Injury.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2018Review
- Phase-dependent deficits during reach-to-grasp after human spinal cord injury.Journal of neurophysiology · 2018Article
- Afferent input and sensory function after human spinal cord injury.Journal of neurophysiology · 2018Review
- Brain Gray Matter Atrophy after Spinal Cord Injury: A Voxel-Based Morphometry Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We recently demonstrated that the electrical perceptual threshold (EPT) examination reveals spared sensory function at lower spinal segments compared with the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) examination in humans with chronic incomplete cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). Here, we investigated whether discrepancies in sensory function detected by both sensory examinations change over time after SCI. Forty-five participants with acute (<1 year), chronic (≥1-10 years), and extended-chronic (>10 years) incomplete cervical SCI and 30 control subjects were tested on dermatomes C2-T4 bilaterally. EPT values were higher in subjects with acute (2.5 ± 0.8 mA), chronic (2.2 ± 0.7 mA), or extended-chronic (2.8 ± 1.1 mA) SCI compared with controls (1.0 ± 0.1 mA). The EPT examination detected sensory impairments in spinal segments above (2.3 ± 0.9) and below (4.2 ± 2.6) the level detected by the ISNCSCI sensory examination in participants with acute and chronic SCI, respectively. Notably, both examinations detected similar levels of spared sensory function in the extended-chronic phase of SCI (0.8 ± 0.5). A negative correlation was found between differences in EPT and ISNCSCI sensory levels and time post-injury. These observations indicate that discrepancies between EPT and ISNCSCI sensory scores are time-dependent, with the EPT revealing impaired sensory function above, below, or at the same spinal segment as the ISNCSCI examination. We propose that the EPT is a sensitive tool to assess changes in sensory function over time after incomplete cervical SCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.