ArticleSpinal cord series and cases2017
Pulse article: How do you do the international standards for neurological classification of SCI anorectal exam?
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of a reliable sacral-sparing examination to assess the ASIA impairment scale in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2024Article
- What is the clinical meaning of a negative bulbocavernosus reflex in spinal cord injury patients?Spinal cord series and cases · 2022Article
- Article
- The sacral exam-what is needed to best care for our patients?Spinal cord series and cases · 2020Review
- Anal reflex versus bulbocavernosus reflex in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injury.Spinal cord series and cases · 2020Review
- Establishment and verification of a surgical prognostic model for cervical spinal cord injury without radiological abnormality.Neural regeneration research · 2019Article
- The importance of the anal exam in neurologic classification of spinal cord injury.Spinal cord series and cases · 2018Review
- Awards and updates.Spinal cord series and cases · 2018Article
- International standards to document remaining autonomic Function in persons with SCI and neurogenic bowel dysfunction: Illustrative cases.Spinal cord series and cases · 2018Article
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
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
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.