ArticleBMC neurology2021
Nerve transfer surgery in spinal cord injury: online information sharing.
Article in BMC neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current surgical management of traumatic peripheral nerve injuries.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Clinical electrodiagnostic evaluation for nerve transfer surgery in spinal cord injury: a new indication and clinical pearls.Journal of neurophysiology · 2022Review
- Assessing an Online Patient Decision Aid about Upper Extremity Reconstructive Surgery for Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: Pilot Testing Knowledge, Decisional Conflict, and Acceptability.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNerve transfer to improve upper extremity function in persons with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is a new reconstructive option, and has led to more people seeking and sharing surgical information and experiences. This study evaluated the role of social media in information-sharing on nerve transfer surgery within the SCI community.
methodsData were collected from Facebook, which is the favored information-sharing platform among individuals seeking medical information. Searched terms included 'spinal cord injury' and 'SCI' and excluded groups with: less than two members (n = 7); closed groups (n = 2); not pertaining to SCI (n = 13); restricted access (n = 36); and non-English (n = 2). Within public and private accessed groups, searches were conducted for 'nerve', 'transfer', 'nerve transfer', and 'nerve surgery'. Each post about nerve transfer, responses to posts, and comments about nerve transfer in response to unrelated posts were tabulated. Thematic content analyses were performed and data were categorized as seeking information, sharing information, sharing support, and sharing appreciation.
resultsThe search yielded 99 groups; 35 met the inclusion criteria (average size = 2007, largest = 12,277). Nerve transfer was discussed in nine groups, with 577 total mentions. In the seeking information axis, posts were related to personal experience (54%), objective information (31%), surgeon/center performing the procedure (9%), and second opinion (4%). At least 13% of posts were from individuals learning about nerve transfers for the first time. In the sharing information axis, the posts: shared personal experience (52%); shared objective information (13%); described alternative treatment (3%); tagged someone to share information (11%); linked to outside resources (12%); and recommended a specific surgeon/center (9%).
conclusionSocial media is an important source of information and support for people with SCI. There is a paucity of information on nerve transfers. These study findings will inform implementation of future education strategies.
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.