ArticleSpinal cord2022
SCiPad: evaluating telemedicine via iPad facetime for general spinal cord injury care.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nursing interventions using digital technologies on individuals with spinal cord injuries: an integrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Patient experiences receiving rehabilitation careFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
- Telepsychology for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: Protocol for a Randomized Control Study of Video-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Development of a Remote Version of the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensation, and Prehension (GRASSP): Validity and Reliability.Neurorehabilitation and neural repairArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designUncontrolled clinical pilot study.
objectivesTo assess usage, perceived impact, and satisfaction with a telemedicine program among individuals with spinal cord injury (tele-SCI).
settingCommunity-based.
methodsParticipants (N = 83) were recruited from acute SCI inpatient rehabilitation and outpatient SCI care at a community hospital to participate in a 6-month tele-SCI intervention administered by SCI subspecialty board-certified physiatrists via iPad FaceTime. In addition to monthly follow up interview calls, psychosocial and Quality of Life (QoL) measures were collected at baseline and post-intervention. A program satisfaction survey was also collected post-intervention.
resultsSeventy-five percent of participants engaged in tele-SCI visits (Median [IQR]: 2.5 [2.0, 4.0]) for a total of 198 tele-SCI visits. Bladder and bowel concerns were the leading topics discussed during tele-SCI visits, followed by neurological, pain, and functional concerns. Tele-SCI users resided further away (Median miles [IQR] - 114[73-177] vs. 81[46-116], p = 0.023) and reported seeking more clinical advice (Median [IQR] - 1.5[0-4.0] vs. 0[0-1.0], p = 0.002) compared to non-tele-SCI users. All other clinical utilization, baseline characteristics, psychosocial measures, and QoL did not differ among those who used tele-SCI and those who did not. The satisfaction survey suggested satisfaction with the tele-SCI intervention (89%), study equipment (89%), staff responsiveness (100%), and improved motivation for self-monitoring of health (71%).
conclusionStudy findings suggest that tele-SCI is a feasible modality for providing general SCI care. Further research is required to examine longer-term efficacy of remotely-provided care among individuals living with SCI.
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.