Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28469645›Full record

ReviewNeural regeneration research2017

The translational importance of establishing biomarkers of human spinal cord injury.

Sanam Salimi Elizei, Brian K Kwon

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neural regeneration research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A multi-analyte blood test for acute spinal cord injury.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025
    Trial
  3. Rewiring the Lung-CNS Axis After Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of inflammation research · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Diagnostic blood RNA profiles for human acute spinal cord injury.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sanam Salimi ElizeiInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD), University of British Columbia, BC, Canada.
Brian K KwonInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD), University of British Columbia, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5089-8280
University of British Columbia · CAVancouver Spine Surgery Institute · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evaluation of such novel therapies for acute spinal cord injury in clinical trials is extremely challenging. Our current dependence upon the clinical assessment of neurologic impairment renders many acute SCI patients ineligible for trials because they are not examinable. Furthermore, the difficulty in predicting neurologic recovery based on the early clinical assessment forces investigators to recruit large cohorts to have sufficient power. Biomarkers that objectively classify injury severity and better predict neurologic outcome would be valuable tools for translational research. As such, the objective of the present review was to describe some of the translational challenges in acute spinal cord injury research and examine the potential utility of neurochemical biomarkers found within cerebrospinal fluid and blood. We focus on published efforts to establish biological markers for accurately classifying injury severity and precisely predict neurological outcome.

Indexed as

biomarkerscerebrospinal fluidinjury severityneurological recoveryspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID28469645
PMCPMC5399708
OpenAlexW2600957505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.