ArticleBMJ open2019
Systematic scoping review protocol for clinical prediction rules (CPRs) in the management of patients with spinal cord injuries.
Article in BMJ open, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical utility during inpatient rehabilitation of a clinical prediction rule for ambulation prognosis following spinal cord injury.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2023Observational
- Toward Improving the Prediction of Functional Ambulation After Spinal Cord Injury Through the Inclusion of Limb Accelerations During Sleep and Personal Factors.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Predictive models of diabetes complications: protocol for a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Artificial intelligence prediction of the effect of rehabilitation in whiplash associated disorder.PloS one · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe upsurge in the use of clinical prediction models in general medical practice is a result of evidence-based practice. However, the total number of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) currently being used or undergoing impact analysis in the management of patients who have sustained spinal cord injuries (SCIs) is unknown. This scoping review protocol will describe the current CPRs being used and highlight their possible strengths and weaknesses in SCI management. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework will be used. The following databases will be searched to identify relevant literature relating to the use of CPRs in the management of patients who have sustained an SCI: PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, Medline, OvidMedline and Google Scholar. Grey literature as well as reference lists of included studies will be searched. All studies relating to the use of CPRs in the management of patients with SCIs will be included. Literature searches and data extraction will be performed independently by two groups of reviewers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical clearance is not required for this scoping review study since only secondary data sources will be used. The findings of this review will be disseminated by means of peer-reviewed publication and conference proceedings. The final paper will be submitted for publication. Results of this review will also be presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to important stakeholders such as practicing physicians within specialised spinal care facilities within South Africa.
Indexed as
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.