Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31836873›Full record

SynthesisSpinal cord2020

Motor imagery for pain and motor function after spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

Emmanuelle Opsommer, Odile Chevalley, Natalya Korogod

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05098587 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Are Changes in Pain Perception Associated With Changes in Brain Activity Patterns in Persons With Spinal Cord Injury and Neuropathic Pain After a Virtual Walking Training Program - A Pilot Study

TypeobservationalSponsorSwiss Paraplegic Research, NottwilRan2021 to 2023Enrolled12ConditionsSpinal Cord Injuries, Neuropathic Pain
NCT05670080 nasuspendednot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Does Motor Imagination Have a Therapeutic Role in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair? Randomized Controlled, Single-Blind Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlanya Alaaddin Keykubat UniversityRan2026 to 2027Enrolled36ConditionsRotator Cuff Tears, Motor Imagery, Muscle Activity, Atrophy, MuscularArmsMotor Imagery, Physical Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Emmanuelle OpsommerSchool of Health Sciences (HESAV) - University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Avenue de Beaumont 21, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. emmanuelle.opsommer@hesav.ch.
Odile ChevalleySchool of Health Sciences (HESAV) - University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Avenue de Beaumont 21, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Natalya KorogodSchool of Health Sciences (HESAV) - University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Avenue de Beaumont 21, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic review.

objectivesTo evaluate the therapeutic benefits of motor imagery (MI) for the people with spinal cord injury (SCI).

settingInternational.

methodsWe searched electronic bibliographic databases, trial registers, and relevant reference lists. The review included experimental and quasi-experimental study designs as well as observational studies. For the critical appraisal of the 18 studies retrieved (three RCT, seven quasi-RCT, eight observational), we used instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. The primary outcome measure was pain. Secondary outcome measures included motor function and neurophysiological parameters. Adverse effects were extracted if reported in the included studies. Because of data heterogeneity, only a qualitative synthesis is offered.

resultsThe included studies involved 282 patients. In most, results were an improvement in motor function and decreased pain; however, some reported no effect or an increase in pain. Although protocols of MI intervention were heterogeneous, sessions of 8-20 min were used for pain treatments, and of 30-60 min were used for motor function improvement. Neurophysiological measurements showed changes in brain region activation and excitability imposed by SCI, which were partially recovered by MI interventions. No serious adverse effects were reported.

conclusionsHigh heterogeneity in the SCI population, MI interventions, and outcomes measured makes it difficult to judge the therapeutic effects and best MI intervention protocol, especially for people with SCI with neuropathic pain. Further clinical trials evaluating MI intervention as adjunct therapy for pain in SCI patients are warranted.

Indexed as

ImaginationMotor ActivityHumansNeurological RehabilitationSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.