Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37072509›Full record

ReviewSpinal cord2023

Strengths, gaps, and future directions on the landscape of ethics-related research for spinal cord injury.

Anna Nuechterlein, Lydia Feng, Alaa Yehia, Judy Illes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anna NuechterleinNeuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Koerner S124, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada.
Lydia FengNeuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Koerner S124, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada.
Alaa YehiaNeuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Koerner S124, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada.
Judy IllesNeuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Koerner S124, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada. jilles@mail.ubc.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-4791-8084

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchSpinal Cord InjuriesHumans

Identifiers

PMID37072509
PMCPMC10495258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.