Observational studySpinal cord2021
Etiology-specific variation in survival following non-traumatic spinal cord injury: a causal inference approach using data from a population-based cohort.
Observational study in Spinal cord, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicenter study on predictors of rehabilitation outcome and home discharge in people with non-traumatic spinal cord injuries.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Observational
- Prevalence and Impact of Fractures in Persons with Spinal Cord Injuries: A Population-Based Study Comparing Fracture Rates between Individuals with Traumatic and Nontraumatic Spinal Cord Injury.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Quality of sexual life in Mexican men after spinal cord injury.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Network analysis of multimorbidity and health outcomes among persons with spinal cord injury in Canada.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- First contact of care for persons with spinal cord injury: a general practitioner or a spinal cord injury specialist?BMC family practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designObservational, population-based cohort study.
objectivesTo evaluate the origin and contribution to excess of survival differences following non-traumatic spinal cord injury (NTSCI) using etiology as proxy for variation in underlying health condition.
settingSpecialized rehabilitation centers in Switzerland.
methodsMedical record data collected by the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury cohort (SwiSCI) study were linked with mortality information from the Swiss National Cohort. Considering contemporary theory and empirical evidence, a directed acyclic graph (DAG) was developed to formally evaluate causal differences among NTSCI etiologies, relative to traumatic SCI (TSCI). Statistical inference was contingent on hazard ratios (HRs) and marginal survival differences, derived using flexible parametric modeling.
results3643 individuals (NTSCI = 1357; TSCI = 2286) diagnosed with SCI between 1990 and 2011 were included, contributing a cumulative 41,344 person-years and 1323 deaths. Test statistics confirmed DAG-dataset consistency. As compared to TSCI, mortality was elevated in all NTSCI etiological groups; malignant etiologies had the highest HRs (10; 95% CI, 8.0 to 14) followed by infection (2.6; 1.8 to 3.6) and vascular (2.5; 2.0 to 3.2) etiology groups. At the attained age of 55, the estimated reduction in survival among non-malignant etiologies was 9.4% (5.8 to 13) at 5 years and 17% (11 to 23) at 20 years.
conclusionsCausal differences in survival among NTSCI etiological groups are likely a result of chronic variation in health conditions. This study supports the development of long-term interdisciplinary management and policy for individuals with NTSCI, specific to etiology.
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.