ReviewSpinal cord series and cases2018
The importance of the anal exam in neurologic classification of spinal cord injury.
Review in Spinal cord series and cases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What is the clinical meaning of a negative bulbocavernosus reflex in spinal cord injury patients?Spinal cord series and cases · 2022Article
- Anal reflex versus bulbocavernosus reflex in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injury.Spinal cord series and cases · 2020Review
- Awards and updates.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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The examination of the sensation of the anal orifice and the contraction of the external anal sphincter, either voluntarily or reflexly, has always been an integral part of the International Standards for Neurologic Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI). Yet the importance of this component has been defended and challenged. This paper compares these two points of view as expressed by Previnaire and Marino, respectively. Both authors make important points but as the papers do not address the same aspect of the anal exam, room for further refinement of ISNCSCI both regarding the details of the exam and the use of components of the exam for prognostication of neurologic recovery is apparent.
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.