ArticleSpinal cord2022
Validity and responsiveness of the Standing and Walking Assessment Tool for sub-acute traumatic spinal cord injury.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Affecting Standing and Walking Outcomes for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury During In-Patient Rehabilitation: A Qualitative Study on the Perspectives of Physiotherapists.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2025Article
- Using the Standing and Walking Assessment Tool at Discharge Predicts Community Outdoor Walking Capacity in Persons With Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.Physical therapy · 2023Article
- Communicating Standing and Walking Data after Spinal Cord Injury: A Patient-Engaged, Qualitative Study.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Convergent validity and responsiveness of The Standing and Walking Assessment Tool (SWAT) among individuals with non-traumatic spinal cord injury.Frontiers in neurology · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designThis is a retrospective longitudinal study.
objectiveThe Standing and Walking Assessment Tool (SWAT) combines stages of standing and walking recovery (SWAT stages) with established measures (Berg Balance Scale (BBS), 10-m walk test (10MWT), 6-min walk test (6MWT), and modified Timed Up-and-Go (mTUG)). We evaluated the SWAT's validity (known-groups and convergent) and responsiveness among inpatients with sub-acute, traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingTen Canadian rehabilitation hospitals.
methodsUpon admission, SWAT stage and core measures (BBS, 10MWT, 6MWT, and mTUG), International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI sensory and motor scores, and Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (SCIM) were collected from 618 adults with SCI. Known-groups validity was evaluated by comparing SWAT stage distributions across American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) classification. Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating SWAT stages with scores on other measures using Spearman's rho. The SWAT (stage and core measures) was re-administered at discharge. To evaluate responsiveness, SWAT stages at admission and discharge were compared. The standardized response mean (SRM) was used to evaluate the responsiveness of core SWAT measures.
resultsThe SWAT stage distribution of participants with AIS D injuries differed from those of participants with AIS A-C injuries (p ≤ 0.002). SWAT stages correlated strongly with BBS and motor scores (ρ = 0.778-0.836), and moderately with SCIM, mTUG, 10MWT, 6MWT, and sensory scores (ρ = 0.409-0.692). Discharge SWAT stage was greater than the admission stage (p < 0.0001). The BBS was the most responsive core SWAT measure (SRM = 1.26).
conclusionsThe SWAT is a valid and responsive approach to the measurement of standing and walking ability during sub-acute 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.