ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2022
How to learn the International Standards to document remaining Autonomic Function after Spinal Cord Injury (ISAFSCI) content: Self-study through booklet is not enough.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- German Transcreation of the International Standards to Document Remaining Autonomic Function After Spinal Cord Injury (Second Edition): A Feasibility Study in Individuals With Subacute Phase Spinal Cord Injury/Disease (SCI/D).Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the baseline knowledge of autonomic functions and specifically the International Standards to document remaining Autonomic Function after Spinal Cord Injury (ISAFSCI) among medical students and to present the effective methods in learning of the ISAFSCI.
designInterventional training session.
settingA tertiary hospital.
participants37 medical students.
interventionsBefore training, a self-rating questionnaire including 24 concepts extracted from the ISAFSCI was administrated to the students. Then students were divided into two groups. One group (
main outcome measuresBaseline knowledge self-rating questionnaire before training and comparison of post-training performance on the written test between the BSS and LBL groups.
resultsBefore training, students were familiar with only 8 out of the 24 concepts within the questionnaire (demonstrating baseline knowledge rate beyond 50%). Significant difference in post-training performance (P<0.05) between BBS and LBL groups was noted for 5 of 15 items tested, including hypohydrosis, broncho-pulmonary system, lower urinary tract function, bowel function and female sexual function. All questions except the one regarding hypohydrosis were answered with greater than 80% accuracy by LBL group.
conclusionUse of ISAFSCI booklet alone for self-study by medical students is not sufficient to obtain bassline knowledge of autonomic discussions after SCI. It is recommended that formal lecture or presentation should be used to improve the effectiveness of learning the ISAFSCI for medical students.
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.