Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28701541›Full record

ReviewJournal of neurophysiology2018

Afferent input and sensory function after human spinal cord injury.

Recep A Ozdemir, Monica A Perez

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neurophysiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Tissue bridges predict neuropathic pain emergence after spinal cord injury.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2020
    Article
  19. Cortical and Subcortical Effects of Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation in Humans with Tetraplegia.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Recep A OzdemirDepartment of Neurological Surgery, The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami , Miami, Florida.
Monica A PerezDepartment of Neurological Surgery, The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami , Miami, Florida.
University of Miami · US

Funding

Corticospinal Function after Spinal Cord InjuryR01NS090622 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI PEREZ, MONICA A · 2014 to 2018
$1.6M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS090622
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) often disrupts the integrity of afferent (sensory) axons projecting through the spinal cord dorsal columns to the brain. Examinations of ascending sensory tracts, therefore, are critical for monitoring the extent of SCI and recovery processes. In this review, we discuss the most common electrophysiological techniques used to assess transmission of afferent inputs to the primary motor cortex (i.e., afferent input-induced facilitation and inhibition) and the somatosensory cortex [i.e., somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), dermatomal SSEPs, and electrical perceptual thresholds] following human SCI. We discuss how afferent input modulates corticospinal excitability by involving cortical and spinal mechanisms depending on the timing of the effects, which need to be considered separately for upper and lower limb muscles. We argue that the time of arrival of afferent input onto the sensory and motor cortex is critical to consider in plasticity-induced protocols in humans with SCI. We also discuss how current sensory exams have been used to detect differences between control and SCI participants but might be less optimal to characterize the level and severity of injury. There is a need to conduct some of these electrophysiological examinations during functionally relevant behaviors to understand the contribution of impaired afferent inputs to the control, or lack of control, of movement. Thus the effects of transmission of afferent inputs to the brain need to be considered on multiple functions following human SCI.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, SomatosensorySensationHumansNeurologic ExaminationNeurons, AfferentSensorimotor CortexSpinal Cord Injuriesdorsal columnsensory cortexsensory functionsomatosensory cortexsomatosensory evoked potentialsspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID28701541
PMCPMC5866465
OpenAlexW2734586193

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.