ArticleSpinal cord2022
Organisation of services and systems of care in paediatric spinal cord injury rehabilitation in seven countries: a survey with a descriptive cross-sectional design.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Haptic-Driven Serious Card Games for Older Adults: User Preferences Study.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
- Factors influencing on functional independence outcomes after hospitalization and rehabilitation in children with spinal cord injury.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Resilience and adaptations-insights from Norwegian adolescents with pediatric-onset spinal cord injury.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- Challenges in traumatic spinal cord injury care in developing countries - a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Clinical Characteristics and Comorbid Conditions in Pediatric Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Patients.Cureus · 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
21 authors at 11 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designInternational multicentre cross-sectional study.
objectivesTo describe the organisation and systems of paediatric spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation services in seven countries and compare them with available recommendations and key features of paediatric SCI.
settingTen SCI rehabilitation units in seven countries admitting children and adolescents with SCI < 18 years of age.
methodsAn online survey reporting data from 2017. Descriptive and qualitative analysis were used to describe the data.
resultsThe units reported large variations in catchment area, paediatric population and referrals, but similar challenges in discharge policy. Nine of the units were publicly funded. Three units had a paediatric SCI unit. The most frequent causes of traumatic injury were motor vehicle accidents, falls, and sports accidents. Unlike the other units, the Chinese units reported acrobatic dancing as a major cause. Mean length of stay in primary rehabilitation ranged between 18 and 203 days. Seven units offered life-long follow-up. There was a notable variation in staffing between the units; some of the teams were not optimal regarding the interdisciplinary and multiprofessional nature of the field. Eight units followed acknowledged standards and recommendations for specialised paediatric SCI rehabilitation and focused on family-centred care and rehabilitation as a dynamic process adapting to the child and the family.
conclusionsAs anticipated, we found differences in the organisation and administration of rehabilitation services for paediatric SCI in the ten rehabilitation units in seven countries. This might indicate a need for internationally approved, evidence-based guidelines for specialised paediatric SCI rehabilitation.
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.