Trial reportSpinal cord2019
Influence of training protocols on text input speed on a computer in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRandomised controlled trial.
objectivesTo evaluate the impact of two different word prediction software (WPS) training protocols on text input speed (TIS) in people with tetraplegia and to determine which was the most effective.
settingRehabilitation department, Garches, France.
methodsParticipants with neurological levels between C6 and C8 were allocated to one of three different groups. The REHAB group underwent training with an occupational therapist. The SELF group carried out a standardised home self-training with a written training guide. The CONTROL group had no training. Participants were assessed at day 15 (D15) and day 30 (D30). The primary outcome was a copying task with and without WPS (WITH and WITHOUT).
resultsForty-two participants (mean age ± SD of 39.8 ± 12) were included and 38 completed the study. At D30, the mean (95% confidence interval) difference in TIS between the CONTROL and SELF groups was 3.8 [-1.7 to 9.4] characters per minute (cpm) (p = 0.23), between the REHAB and SELF groups was 12.9 [7.4 to 18.4] cpm (p < 0.001), and between the REHAB and CONTROL groups was 9.1 [3.5 to 14.6] cpm (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe results of this study showed that occupational therapist-supervised training improved TIS but word prediction software did not increase TIS. These results suggest that supervised training should be provided to all individuals who are prescribed with devices and systems to facilitate computer access in order to increase their TIS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30814669What 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.