ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2018
Quality reporting of carotid intima-media thickness methodology; Current state of the science in the field of spinal cord injury.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCarotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) may be used increasingly as a cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening tool in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) as other routine invasive diagnostic tests are often unfeasible. However, variation in cIMT acquisition and analysis methods is an issue in the current published literature. The growth of the field is dependent on cIMT quality acquisition and analysis to ensure accurate reporting of CVD risk. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of the reported methodology used to collect cIMT values in SCI.
methodsData from 12 studies, which measured cIMT in individuals with SCI, were identified from the Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases. The quality of the reported methodologies was scored based on adherence to cIMT methodological guidelines abstracted from two consensus papers.
resultsFive studies were scored as 'moderate quality' in methodological reporting, having specified 9 to 11 of 15 quality reporting criterion. The remaining seven studies were scored as 'low quality', having reported less than 9 of 15 quality reporting criterion. No study had methodological reporting that was scored as 'high quality'. The overall reporting of quality methodology was poor in the published SCI literature.
conclusionsA greater adherence to current methodological guidelines is needed to advance the field of cIMT in SCI. Further research is necessary to refine cIMT acquisition and analysis guidelines to aid authors designing research and journals in screening manuscripts for publication.
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.