Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423284›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord series and cases2017

Pulse article: How do you do the international standards for neurological classification of SCI anorectal exam?

Marcalee Alexander, Hammad Aslam, Ralph J Marino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Spinal cord series and cases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Awards and updates.Spinal cord series and cases · 2018
    Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Marcalee Alexander1Birmingham VA Medical Center, 700 South 19th Street, Birmingham, AL 35233 USA.
Hammad Aslam2Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL USA.
Ralph J Marino4Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2670-4113

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designOnline survey of spinal cord injury (SCI) practitioners.

objectivesDetermine provider understanding and routine performance of International Standards for Neurologic Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) anorectal examination.

settingInternational online questionnaire.

methodsA descriptive survey was developed to assess current performance of the ISNCSCI anorectal exam. Information about this survey was disseminated through social email and international societies between the months of March and April 2017.

resultsTwo hundred and fifteen SCI practitioners completed the survey. Of these, 157 (73%) were specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation, 32 (15%) were physical therapists, 6 were neurologists, 6 were orthopedists, and 3 were neurosurgeons. Of responders, 90% routinely personally performed the anal exam of the ISNCSCI, of whom, 42 placed firm pressure against the anal sphincter, 58 placed firm pressure against the rectal wall, and 87 placed firm pressure against the anal sphincter and rectal wall as part of the exam. On a routine basis, 74% tested sensation at the junction of the anal sphincter and skin, 82% had the patient attempt to squeeze their finger, and 50% performed the bulbocavernosus reflex.

conclusionsMarked inconsistency exists in the performance of the ISNCSCI anal examination. Researchers and clinicians need more education about the performance of the examination. Consideration should be given for the components of deep rectal sensation and anal pressure to be separately documented in the neurologic exam and for researchers to focus separately on recovery of sacral function vs. ambulatory function in clinical trials.

Identifiers

PMID29423284
PMCPMC5798917

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.