ArticleSpinal cord series and cases2019
Cross-sectional and prospective data-collection in North Macedonia-methodological considerations.
Article in Spinal cord series and cases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study design: Cross-sectional and prospective cohort-study. Objectives: To describe methodological issues, experienced challenges related to data collection in North Macedonia and to discuss possible improvements of epidemiological data collection in future studies. Setting: Clinic for Traumatology, Orthopedics, Anesthesia, Reanimation, Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Center, Mother Teresa Skopje University Hospital, Skopje and community settings, North Macedonia. Method: A description of methodological challenges experienced in collecting data from 78 persons with acute and chronic traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) examined and interviewed in 2015-2017 using a semiquantitative questionnaire and standard assessments tools. Results: This study identified three major challenges with data collection in this setting: (1) research logistics and procedures, such as recruitment, infrastructure, and compensation, (2) ethical issues and the initial lack of mutual trust and understanding between researchers and participants, and (3) scientific quality and interpretation, including representativeness. Conclusions: Methodological issues influenced by settings, are important to consider when interpreting study results. Healthcare systems vary between (and sometimes in) countries, language and culture may introduce barriers to understanding, and epidemiological research also rely on infrastructure and surroundings. For this study, making time for and listening to the participants without being intruding was of special importance in building trust and a good relationship with the participants during recruiting participants and collecting data. We here provide suggestions regarding how to facilitate future epidemiological data collections in North Macedonia.
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.