ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2021
Central Recruitment: A process for engaging and recruiting individuals with spinal cord injury/disease in research at Toronto Rehabilitation Institute.
Article 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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Oral Health After Spinal Cord Injury: A Scoping Review of Barriers, Facilitators, Current Interventions and Their Effectiveness.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- From Strength to Dexterity: Clinically Meaningful Recovery of Upper Limb in Individuals with Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Ethical complexities in rehabilitation research: an integrative review of challenges and principles.BMC medical ethics · 2026Review
- Article
- Taxonomy of chronic illness research recruitment: a restricted scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Challenges and strategies for spinal cord injury research recruitment in rehabilitation hospitals: a single center perspective.Spinal cord · 2025Review
- Urban-Rural Disparities in Community Participation after Spinal Cord Injury in Ontario.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Interrater reliability of the Standing and Walking Assessment Tool for spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2023Article
- Clinical Trials Targeting Secondary Damage after Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Communicating Standing and Walking Data after Spinal Cord Injury: A Patient-Engaged, Qualitative Study.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Article
- Impact of Falls and Fear of Falling on Participation, Autonomy and Life Satisfaction in the First Year After Spinal Cord Injury.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextInsufficient recruitment is a barrier to research and limits statistical power. We describe an initiative aimed to streamline recruitment and consent processes for inpatients with spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) via implementation of a Central Recruitment (CR) process. The CR process adhered to ethical standards, reduced participant burden, and maximized research participation.
methodsIn this CR process, the inpatient's nurse affirmed suitability for research approach based on fluency, cognition and health stability. A patient research liaison (PRL) was the sole contact for information regarding the research process, and introduced ongoing studies, screened for eligibility, and completed the consent process(es).
resultsOver five and a half years, 1,561 inpatients with SCI/D were screened for eligibility upon admission, of whom 80% (1256/1561) were deemed suitable for the PRL approach. Of those suitable for the CR process, 80% (1001/1256) agreed to discuss current research opportunities, 46% (235/516) consented to participate in one or more studies, and 86% (856/1001) agreed to future research contact.
conclusionThis process adhered to ethical procedures and reduced the burden of having multiple researchers approach each individual inpatient regarding research participation, with high consent rates for low-risk studies. Future evaluation of the process scalability is underway.
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.