Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34706778›Full record

ReviewBioelectronic medicine2021

Motor improvements enabled by spinal cord stimulation combined with physical training after spinal cord injury: review of experimental evidence in animals and humans.

Ismael Seáñez, Marco Capogrosso

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioelectronic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05926843 (Evaluation of Spinal Cord Stimulation Assisted by Motor Rehabilitation Training for Restoring Motor Function After Spinal Cord Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT05926843 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of Spinal Cord Stimulation Assisted by Motor Rehabilitation Training for Restoring Motor Function After Spinal Cord Injury: an Interventional, Prospective, Monocentric Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorIRCCS San RaffaeleRan2023 to 2026Enrolled10ConditionsSpinal Cord InjuriesArmsSpinal cord stimulation surgery (device) and motor rehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Neuromodulation techniques - From non-invasive brain stimulation to deep brain stimulation.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ismael SeáñezBiomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA. ismaelseanez@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0068-7124
Marco CapogrossoNeurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrical spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been gaining momentum as a potential therapy for motor paralysis in consequence of spinal cord injury (SCI). Specifically, recent studies combining SCS with activity-based training have reported unprecedented improvements in motor function in people with chronic SCI that persist even without stimulation. In this work, we first provide an overview of the critical scientific advancements that have led to the current uses of SCS in neurorehabilitation: e.g. the understanding that SCS activates dormant spinal circuits below the lesion by recruiting large-to-medium diameter sensory afferents within the posterior roots. We discuss how this led to the standardization of implant position which resulted in consistent observations by independent clinical studies that SCS in combination with physical training promotes improvements in motor performance and neurorecovery. While all reported participants were able to move previously paralyzed limbs from day 1, recovery of more complex motor functions was gradual, and the timeframe for first observations was proportional to the task complexity. Interestingly, individuals with SCI classified as AIS B and C regained motor function in paralyzed joints even without stimulation, but not individuals with motor and sensory complete SCI (AIS A). Experiments in animal models of SCI investigating the potential mechanisms underpinning this neurorecovery suggest a synaptic reorganization of cortico-reticulo-spinal circuits that correlate with improvements in voluntary motor control. Future experiments in humans and animal models of paralysis will be critical to understand the potential and limits for functional improvements in people with different types, levels, timeframes, and severities of SCI.

Identifiers

PMID34706778
PMCPMC8555080
OpenAlexW3208405343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.