ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
Effects of multidisciplinary model of damage control on acute cervical spinal cord injury in winter Olympic sports.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. 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.
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
purposeTo investigate the feasibility of multidisciplinary model of damage control (MMDC) in patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury (ACSCI) in winter Olympic sports.
methodsA total of 110 patients with ACSCI who participated in winter Olympic sports were selected as the study subjects, and were divided into the study group (SG, n=60, MMDC) and the control group (CG, n=50, conventional intervention) according to the intervention mode. The clinical effects of intervention, changes in neurological function and muscle tone before and after intervention, the changes in motor function and activity of daily living during intervention, and patient satisfaction towards intervention were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe effective rate of intervention in the SG was 98.33%, higher than 88.00% in the CG (
conclusionMMDC showed better efficacy, the patients' neurological function, muscle tone and motor function could be better restored, and patients' abilities of daily activities were improved after intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34150091PMC8205732W3176123274What 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.