ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2024
Quantification of hand functional recovery in spinal cord injury patients.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA prospective cohort study.
objectivesTo examine the use of a circle-tracing task in quantifying hand functional recovery in cervical spinal cord injury patients.
methodsTen cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) patients and 10 healthy age-matched controls performed a circle-tracing task, using a computerized tablet at the beginning of the study and after 4 weeks. Data relative to performance accuracy as well as pen pressure throughout the performances were collected, and clinical assessment for all patients was performed at the beginning and at the end of the study.
resultsSignificant differences were found in pen pressure profiles in the SCI patients between the initial assessment and after 4 weeks of assessment. SCI patients, when compared with controls, apply less pressure during the execution, though no significant differences were found for the other parameters. Examination of pen pressure profiles of both controls and SCI patients reveals that, in addition to the lower pressure registered, SCI patients present a more oscillating pressure profile which is direction-dependent. No significant correlations were found between clinical assessments and pen pressure, both within the initial assessment as well as after 4 weeks.
conclusionsThis study emphasizes the potential of simple computerized means for quantifying upper limb functions in SCI patients. These results of this study could be helpful for both highlighting specific functional deficits in patients as well tailoring specific interventions.
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.