ArticleSpinal cord2022
Predicting motor function recovery in cervical spinal cord injury-induced complete paralysis with reflex response.
Article in Spinal cord, 2022. 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, 1 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA retrospective clinical study.
objectiveTo elucidate the usefulness of the patellar tendon reflex (PTR), bulbocavernosus reflex (BCR), and plantar response (PR) as factors in the prognostic prediction of motor function in complete paralysis due to cervical spinal cord injuries (CSCIs) at the acute phase.
settingDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spinal Injuries Center, Japan.
methods99 patients assessed as the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grade A (AIS A) were included in this study. The PTR, BCR, and PR were evaluated respectively as positive or negative at the time of injury. We classified the patients into two groups based on their neurological recovery at 3 months after injury: "recovered" group was defined as AIS C, D, or E; "non-recovered" group was defined as AIS A or B.
resultsEight patients demonstrated positive PTR, while 91 demonstrated negative. Three out of eight patients with positive PTR (37.5%) were R group, while 83 out of 91 patients with negative PTR (91.2%) were N group. A significant difference was observed (p = 0.043). For BCR, no significant difference was observed (p > 0.05). Twenty-six patients demonstrated positive PTR, while 73 demonstrated negative. Nine out of twenty-six patients with positive PR (34.6%) were R group, while 71 out of 73 patients with negative PR (97.3%) were N group. A significant difference was observed (p = 0.000068).
conclusionThe PTR and PR are useful for poor prognostic prediction of motor function in CSCI at the acute phase.
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.