Observational studySpinal cord2017
Development and validation of a bowel-routine-based self-report questionnaire for sacral sparing after spinal cord injury.
Observational study in Spinal cord, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Management of Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction in Adults after Spinal Cord Injury: Clinical Practice Guideline for Health Care Providers.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitationGuideline
- Translation and validation of the Chinese self-report version of Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM-SR): Rasch psychometric analysis and online application.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Cross-cultural Adaptation of Self-report S4-5 Sensory and Motor Function Questionnaire (S4-5Q) in People with Spinal Cord Injury to Portuguese.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2022Article
- Article
- Recovery Off-Kinetics Following Exhaustive Upper Body Exercise in Spinal Cord Injury.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designAn observational study.
objectiveTo develop a self-administered tool for assessment of sacral sparing after spinal cord injury (SCI) and to test its validity in individuals with SCI.
settingPeking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
methodsA 5-item SCI sacral sparing self-report questionnaire was developed based on several events that most patients might experience during bowel routine. 102 participants who sustained SCI within 12 months were asked to complete the questionnaire followed by an anorectal examination. Agreements of answers to the questionnaire and the physical examination were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity and Youden's index of each item was calculated.
resultsThe first four questions regarding the S4-5 sensation including deep anal pressure showed high agreement with the results of the physical examination (κ: 0.79-0.93). Sensitivity, specificity and Youden's index were also high (all above 80%). For the fifth question related to the voluntary anal contraction, the agreement was almost perfect with good sensitivity and specificity among patients without increased anal sphincter tone (AST). In patients with increased AST, the agreement was fair.
conclusionThe validity of this questionnaire for the assessment of sacral sparing in up to 12 months post injury is good except for the motor function when there was increased AST. In some situations it could be considered as an alternative tool for digital rectal examination, especially when repeated examinations are not feasible. It is suggested that change of sacral sparing may be detected by the questionnaire.
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.