ArticleSpinal cord series and cases2021
Interdisciplinary follow-up clinic for people with spinal cord injury: a retrospective study of a carousel model.
Article in Spinal cord series and cases, 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.
- Assessment of the reliability and usability of ChatGPT in response to spinal cord injury questions.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- Prevalence, causes, and risk profile of rehospitalizations in persons with spinal cord injury within the first 10 years after primary rehabilitation.Spinal cord · 2024Article
- Effects of Adaptations in an Interdisciplinary Follow-Up Clinic for People with Spinal Cord Injury in the Chronic Phase: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designExplorative retrospective cohort study.
objectiveSecondary health conditions (SHCs) are common in people with spinal cord injury (SCI). To date, little is known about the effectiveness of long-term follow-up care in preventing SHCs. The objective of this study was to explore the therapeutic content of an interdisciplinary follow-up clinic by retrospective analyses of provided recommendations and collected data concerning SHCs.
settingRehabilitation center Sint Maartenskliniek, The Netherlands.
methodsAll people with SCI, who visited one or more outpatient interdisciplinary follow-up clinics between January 2012 and October 2020 were included in this study. Treatment information was retrieved from their medical records.
resultsThe 264 participants of the follow-up clinic received, after their first visit, an average of 3.9 recommendations regarding SHCs. Most recommendations were preventive in nature (43%), and were related to physical SHCs (61%). Most recommendations were followed by the participants (34% out of 40% that could be determined) and half of the underlying problems were solved (31% out of 62%). The bodyweight and respiratory function remained stable over time.
conclusionParticipants of the interdisciplinary follow-up clinics received extensive recommendations on a variety of subjects, which most likely, reflects the interdisciplinary approach. Recommendations were followed-up to a large extent, resulting in solving half of the underlying SHCs. This way, worse SHCs were prevented by the recommendations. This findings, together with the stability of respiratory function and bodyweight, suggests the added value of the interdisciplinary follow-up clinic to usual care. More prospective research is necessary to investigate the (cost-)effectiveness.
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.