ArticleSpinal cord2019
Spasticity and preservation of skeletal muscle mass in people with spinal cord injury.
Article in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Denervation impacts muscle quality and knee bone mineral density after spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2023Article
- The effects of spasticity on glucose metabolism and soft tissue body composition in patients with spinal cord injury.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Reduction in post-spinal cord injury spasticity by combination of peripheral nerve grafting and acidic fibroblast growth factor infusion in monkeys.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Spinal Cord Injury as a Model of Bone-Muscle Interactions: Therapeutic Implications FromFrontiers in endocrinology · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designCross-sectional
objectiveTo investigate the association between skeletal muscle mass and spasticity in people with spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingTertiary level hospital in Seoul, Korea
methodsSpasticity was evaluated in 69 participants with SCI using the spasticity sum score (SSS), Penn Spasm Frequency Scale (PSFS), and Spinal Cord Assessment Tool for Spastic Reflexes (SCATS). Skeletal muscle mass was measured using a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanner, and skeletal muscle index was calculated by dividing skeletal muscle mass by height squared. Laboratory parameters including hemoglobin, albumin, creatinine, fasting glucose, and cholesterol were measured. Spearman's correlation analysis was performed to assess the association between the skeletal muscle mass and spasticity scales. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to present the independent association between them.
resultsThe participants' mean age was 41.8 years; 54 (78.3%) were male, and 46 (66.7%) were tetraplegic. Skeletal muscle index of lower extremities was significantly correlated with all spasticity scales. Spearman's correlation coefficients were 0.468, 0.467, 0.555, 0.506, and 0.474 for SSS, PSFS, SCATS clonus, SCATS flexor, and SCATS extensor with p-values < 0.001, respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, level of injury, body mass index, and serum creatinine, all spasticity scales were significantly associated with skeletal muscle index of lower extremities in multiple regression analysis. Standardized coefficients were 0.228, 0.274, 0.294, 0.210, and 0.227 for SSS, PSFS, SCATS clonus, SCATS flexor, and SCATS extensor.
conclusionsSpasticity was significantly correlated with the skeletal muscle mass even after adjusting for possible confounders. Spasticity may need to be considered as an influencing factor in interventions such as electrical stimulation to preserve skeletal muscle mass.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30552414What 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.