ArticleSpinal cord2022
The value of the whole picture: rehabilitation outcome measurement using patient self-report and clinician-based assessments after spinal cord injury.
Article in Spinal cord, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Spinal cord independence measure evidence-based recommendation: a systematic review of measurement properties.Spinal cord · 2026Pooled it
- Anxiety and adjustment following SCI: a transdiagnostic psychological intervention combining Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Coping Effectiveness Training (CET).Spinal cord series and cases · 2025Article
- Building and Sustaining Inpatient-Clinician Collaboration in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation: A Case Example Using the Stoke Mandeville Spinal Needs Assessment Checklist (SMS-NAC) and Goal Planning Programme.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designThis is a retrospective longitudinal study.
objectivesTo explore the relative impact and contribution of using both the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (SCIM) and Stoke Mandeville Spinal Needs Assessment Checklist (SMS-NAC) to assess rehabilitation outcome following an acute spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingThe study was performed at National Spinal Injuries Centre (NSIC), Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Aylesbury, UK.
methodsA patient self-report SMS-NAC and clinician-rated SCIM were administered on admission and discharge from the NSIC as part of standardised care. This paper presents a retrospective analysis of the rehabilitation outcomes of 195 people with spinal cord injury (PwSCI) following their first admission.
resultsIn both measures, PwSCI improved from admission to discharge. Individuals with higher SCI obtained lower scores in both measures, at both admission and discharge. The SMS-NAC demonstrated the greatest increase in knowledge and skill for PwSCI who had higher and more complete injuries. On the SCIM, PwSCI who had lower and less complete injuries demonstrated the greatest increase in outcome.
conclusionsOverall, both measures demonstrated responsiveness to change during SCI rehabilitation and enable clinicians to systematically determine areas to focus rehabilitation effort. The relative strengths and contribution to delivering person-centred care for each are identified. The SMS-NAC enables clinicians to record, for people with higher injuries, their subjective self-report of skill and knowledge gains from rehabilitation that may be missed with other measures. Consequently, using both is encouraged in appreciation of the value of recording verbal (instructional) independence as well as functional (physical) independence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34616008What 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.