Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31267015›Full record

ReviewSpinal cord2019

Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials in spinal cord injury: Neuroimaging biomarkers.

Maryam Seif, Claudia Am Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott, Julien Cohen-Adad, Adam E Flanders, Patrick Freund

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Development of a predictive model for postoperative erectile function recovery in male patients with incomplete traumatic cervical spinal cord injury.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Exploring the Landscape of Biomarkers in Spinal Cord Injury.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Optimization of cervical cord synthetic TImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Maryam SeifSpinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Claudia Am Gandini Wheeler-KingshottFaculty of Brain Sciences, Queen Square MS Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom.
Julien Cohen-AdadNeuroPoly Lab, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Adam E FlandersRegional Spinal Cord Injury Center of the Delaware Valley, Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology, Thomas Jefferson University, 1087 Main Building, 132 South 10th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Patrick FreundSpinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. patrick.freund@balgrist.ch.

Funding

EC | Horizon 2020 (European Union Framework Programme for Research and Innovation) No 681094Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) leads to immediate neuronal and axonal damage at the focal injury site and triggers secondary pathologic series of events resulting in sensorimotor and autonomic dysfunction below the level of injury. Although there is no cure for SCI, neuroprotective and regenerative therapies show promising results at the preclinical stage. There is a pressing need to develop non-invasive outcome measures that can indicate whether a candidate therapeutic agent or a cocktail of therapeutic agents are positively altering the underlying disease processes. Recent conventional MRI studies have quantified spinal cord lesion characteristics and elucidated their relationship between severity of injury to clinical impairment and recovery. Next to the quantification of the primary cord damage, quantitative MRI measures of spinal cord (rostrocaudally to the lesion site) and brain integrity have demonstrated progressive and specific neurodegeneration of afferent and efferent neuronal pathways. MRI could therefore play a key role to ultimately uncover the relationship between clinical impairment/recovery and injury-induced neurodegenerative changes in the spinal cord and brain. Moreover, neuroimaging biomarkers hold promises to improve clinical trial design and efficiency through better patient stratification. The purpose of this narrative review is therefore to propose a guideline of clinically available MRI sequences and their derived neuroimaging biomarkers that have the potential to assess tissue damage at the macro- and microstructural level after SCI. In this piece, we make a recommendation for the use of key MRI sequences-both conventional and advanced-for clinical work-up and clinical trials.

Indexed as

BrainClinical Trials as TopicHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingPractice Guidelines as TopicSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID31267015
PMCPMC6760553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.