ReviewSpinal cord2023
Strengths, gaps, and future directions on the landscape of ethics-related research for spinal cord injury.
Review in Spinal cord, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lower red blood cell count is a risk factor for higher D-dimer level in patients with spinal cord injury: A five year retrospective cross-sectional study.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal cord injury (SCI) affects between 250,000-500,000 people globally each year. While the medical aspects of SCI have received considerable attention in the academic literature, discourse pertaining to its ethical implications is more limited. The experience of SCI is shaped by intersecting demographic and identity factors such as gender, race, and culture that necessitate an intersectional and value-based approach to ethics-related research that is properly situated in context. Given this background, we conducted a content analysis of academic studies exploring the perspectives and priorities of individuals with SCI published in peer-reviewed journals in the decade between 2012-2021. Terms pertaining to SCI and ethics were combined in a search of two major publication databases. We documented overall publication patterns, recruitment and research methods, reporting of demographic variables, and ethics-related discourse. Seventy (70) papers met inclusion criteria and were categorized by their major foci. Findings reveal a gap in reporting of participant demographics, particularly with respect to race and ethnicity, geographic background, and household income. We discuss these person-centered themes and gaps that must be closed in the reporting and supporting of SCI research.
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.