Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31337870›Full record

ReviewSpinal cord2019

Application of electrophysiological measures in spinal cord injury clinical trials: a narrative review.

Michèle Hubli, John L K Kramer, Catherine R Jutzeler, Jan Rosner, Julio C Furlan, Keith E Tansey, Martin Schubert

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Correlation between neurogenic injury and lumbar disc degeneration in tethered cord syndrome: a retrospective MRI study based on somatosensory evoked potentials.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 · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Exploring the Landscape of Biomarkers in Spinal Cord Injury.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Michèle HubliSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Michele.Hubli@balgrist.ch.
John L K KramerInternational Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Catherine R JutzelerSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jan RosnerSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Julio C FurlanUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Keith E TanseyDepartments of Neurosurgery and Neurobiology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
Martin SchubertSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Universitätsklinik Balgrist · CHUniversity of Zurich · CHInternational Collaboration On Repair Discoveries · CAToronto Rehabilitation Institute · CAUniversity of Mississippi Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designNarrative review.

objectivesTo discuss how electrophysiology may contribute to future clinical trials in spinal cord injury (SCI) in terms of: (1) improvement of SCI diagnosis, patient stratification and determination of exclusion criteria; (2) the assessment of adverse events; and (3) detection of therapeutic effects following an intervention.

methodsAn international expert panel for electrophysiological measures in SCI searched and discussed the literature focused on the topic.

resultsElectrophysiology represents a valid method to detect, track, and quantify readouts of nerve functions including signal conduction, e.g., evoked potentials testing long spinal tracts, and neural processing, e.g., reflex testing. Furthermore, electrophysiological measures can predict functional outcomes and thereby guide rehabilitation programs and therapeutic interventions for clinical studies.

conclusionObjective and quantitative measures of sensory, motor, and autonomic function based on electrophysiological techniques are promising tools to inform and improve future SCI trials. Complementing clinical outcome measures, electrophysiological recordings can improve the SCI diagnosis and patient stratification, as well as the detection of both beneficial and adverse events. Specifically composed electrophysiological measures can be used to characterize the topography and completeness of SCI and reveal neuronal integrity below the lesion, a prerequisite for the success of any interventional trial. Further validation of electrophysiological tools with regard to their validity, reliability, and sensitivity are needed in order to become routinely applied in clinical SCI trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicElectrophysiological PhenomenaEvoked Potentials, MotorEvoked Potentials, SomatosensoryHumansPatient SelectionRecovery of FunctionReflexSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID31337870
OpenAlexW2963504495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.