ArticleSpinal cord2019
Validation of a novel cone tool for pinprick sensation examination in patients 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. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designPsychometrics study.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to introduce a novel tool for pinprick sensation examination and validate its usefulness in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingChina Rehabilitation Research Center, Capital Medical University School of Rehabilitation Medicine, China.
methodsA set of cone tools with different tapers (22.5°, 45°, 67.5°, 90°, 112.5°, 135°, 157.5°, and 180°) was made. The cone tool was validated first in 91 able-bodied individuals and then in 30 patients with SCI. The reliability and validity of the cone tool were analyzed by comparing the results of a pinprick sensation examination with the results of the International Standards for the Neurological Classification of SCI (ISNCSCI), the cone tool, and the thermal analyzer.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the cone tool in able-bodied individuals was between 0.48 and 0.94 while that of the cone tool and the ISNCSCI tool ranged between 0.43 and 0.78. Pinprick sensation in patients with SCI can be graded into five levels using four tapers (22.5°, 45°, 67.5°, and 90°): normal, slight impairment, moderate impairment, severe impairment, and complete loss of sensation.
conclusionThis easy-to-use cone tool can produce a reliable semi-quantitative pinprick test result and is useful for pinprick sensation examination in patients with SCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31036891What 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.