Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33963271›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord2021

Clinical judgment is a cornerstone for validating and using clinical prediction rules: a head-to-head study on ambulation outcomes for spinal cord injured patients.

Rémi Pelletier-Roy, Andréane Richard-Denis, Stéphanie Jean, Étienne Bourassa-Moreau, Jean Fleury, Geneviève Beauchamp-Vien, Jean Bégin, Jean-Marc Mac-Thiong

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Rethinking Movement: From Capacity to Context.Kinesiology review (Champaign, Ill.) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rémi Pelletier-RoyUniversité de Montréal, Faculty of Medicine, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Andréane Richard-DenisUniversité de Montréal, Faculty of Medicine, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3638-4416
Stéphanie JeanUniversité de Montréal, Faculty of Medicine, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Étienne Bourassa-MoreauUniversité de Montréal, Faculty of Medicine, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Jean FleuryUniversité de Montréal, Faculty of Medicine, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Geneviève Beauchamp-VienHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Jean BéginHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Jean-Marc Mac-ThiongUniversité de Montréal, Faculty of Medicine, Montréal, QC, Canada. jean-marc.mac-thiong@umontreal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4524-3893
Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal · CAInstitut de Readaptation Gingras Lindsay de Montreal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designRetrospective comparative study.

objectiveClinical prediction rules (CPRs) are an effervescent topic in the medical literature. Recovering ambulation after a traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) is a priority for patients and multiple CPRs have been proposed for predicting ambulation outcomes. Our objective is to confront clinical judgment to an established CPR developed for patients with tSCI. SETTINGS: Level one trauma center specialized in tSCI and its affiliated rehabilitation center.

methodIn this retrospective comparative study, six physicians had to predict the ambulation outcome of 68 patients after a tSCI based on information from the acute hospitalization. Ambulation was also predicted according to the CPR of van Middendorp (CPR-vM). The success rate of the CPR-vM and clinicians to predict ambulation was compared using criteria of 5% for defining clinical significance, and a level of statistical significance of 0.05 for bilateral McNemar tests.

resultsThere was no statistical difference between the overall performance of physicians (success rate of 79%) and of the CPR-vM (81%) for predicting ambulation. The differences between the CPR-vM and physicians varied clinically and significantly with the level of experience, clinical setting, and field of expertise.

conclusionConfronting CPRs with the judgment of a group of clinicians should be an integral part of the design and validation of CPRs. Head-to-head comparison of CPRs with clinicians is also a cornerstone for defining the optimal strategy for translation into the clinical practice, and for defining which clinician and specific clinical context would benefit from using the CPR.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord InjuriesWalkingClinical Decision RulesHumansJudgmentRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33963271
OpenAlexW3157666475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.