ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2024
Challenge or opportunity: Rehabilitation outcomes in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression - a UK single center experience.
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. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based management of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC): expert recommendations for standardizing care in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- The effect of timing on rehabilitation results in tumor-related spinal cord injuries.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Complication avoidance, rehabilitation, pain therapy and palliative care for patients with metastatic spine tumors: WFNS spine committee recommendations.Neurosurgical review · 2024Review
- Rehabilitation to Improve Outcomes after Cervical Spine Surgery: Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT /
objectiveMetastatic Spinal Cord Compression (MSCC) is a devastating complication of cancer, affecting approximately 3000 patients per annum in England. However, access to rehabilitation services for MSCC patients is limited. The London Spinal Cord Injury Centre has set up a bespoke MSCC rehabilitation pathway from May 2013. This article aims to describe the clinical features and functional outcomes of patients with MSCC admitted to a Specialist Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Centre between May 2013 and December 2021.
designRetrospective analysis of medical records from a single specialist rehabilitation centre database.
settingLondon Spinal Cord Injury Centre (LSCIC), Stanmore, United Kingdom.
participantsAdult patients diagnosed with MSCC who were admitted to and discharged from LSCIC from May 2013 to December 2021.
interventionsSpecialist Inpatient Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Program. OUTCOME MEASURES: Spinal Cord Independence Measure 19 (SCIM version III), Discharge Destination.
resultsA total of 40 patients with MSCC were admitted - 32 male and 8 female patients. The average length of stay was 6 weeks. 17(42.5%) patients had primary prostate cancer. Most patients (34(85%)) had thoracic MSCC. There was an improvement in the Spinal Cord Independence Measure in all patients with an average significant improvement from 43.8 to 64.5 (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in SCIM scores between patients under 65 and over 65. 28 (70%) patients required psychological input. 33(82.5%) patients were discharged home.
conclusionPatients with MSCC show improvement in SCIM outcome measures after a six-week inpatient Specialist Spinal Rehabilitation program.
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.