SynthesisThe journal of spinal cord medicine2021
Systematic reviews in spinal cord injury: A step-by-step guide for rehabilitation science learners and clinicians.
Synthesis in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conducting evidence synthesis and developing evidence-based advice in public health and beyond: A scoping review and map of methods guidance.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis use in the field of spinal cord injury research: A bibliometric analysis.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- Current and emergent therapies targeting spinal cord injury.Brain & spine · 2025Review
- Spinal cord medicine today: Meeting the challenges of pandemic-era research and care.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunity for multiple rehabilitation science learners and clinicians to critically evaluate and synthesize published research in the field of spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation.
objectiveTo provide a step-by-step guide for rehabilitation science learners and clinicians outlining how to conduct rigorous systematic reviews in the field of SCI.
resultsSteps for conducting a systematic review (SR) include: (1) formation of the SR team consisting of interprofessional experts; (2) formulation of the research question(s) with patient/population/problem, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) specification; (3) determination of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) development of SR protocol and registration; (5) development of the search strategies (database specific); (6) screening of titles and abstracts (level 1 screening), and full-texts (level 2 screening); (7) quality assessment of the included studies; (8) data extraction; (9) summary of findings and discussion; and, (10) dissemination of results.
conclusionsThe enclosed ten steps for conducting SRs in SCI rehabilitation research have the potential to significantly improve the quality of evidence synthesis and the associated inferences. The importance of assembling team with diverse expertise is emphasized to assure a quality product with the potential to influence practice and inform the content of clinical practice recommendations.
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.