Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37235197›Full record

ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2023

Spinal Cord Injury Community Personal Opinions and Perspectives on Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Nancy P Thorogood, Zeina Waheed, John Chernesky, Ian Burkhart, Judith Smith, Shannon Sweeney, Rob Wudlick, Sam Douglas, Di Wang, Vanessa K Noonan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Distinct Neural Modes Carry Information About Attempted Grasp Timing and Force in the Sensorimotor Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nancy P ThorogoodPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Zeina WaheedPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
John CherneskyPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ian BurkhartNorth American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium, Niagara Falls, New York.
Judith SmithNorth American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium, Niagara Falls, New York.
Shannon SweeneyNorth American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium, Niagara Falls, New York.
Rob WudlickNorth American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium, Niagara Falls, New York.
Sam DouglasPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Di WangPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Vanessa K NoonanPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Praxis Spinal Cord Institute · CAUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) clinical trials are evaluating its efficacy and safety for motor, sensory, and autonomic recovery following spinal cord injury (SCI). The perspectives of people living with SCI are not well known and can inform the planning, delivery, and translation of SCS. Objectives: To obtain input from people living with SCI on the top priorities for recovery, expected meaningful benefits, risk tolerance, clinical trial design, and overall interest in SCS. Methods: Data were collected anonymously from an online survey between February and May 2020. Results: A total of 223 respondents living with SCI completed the survey. The majority of respondents identified their gender as male (64%), were 10+ years post SCI (63%), and had a mean age of 50.8 years. Most individuals had a traumatic SCI (81%), and 45% classified themselves as having tetraplegia. Priorities for improved outcome for those with complete or incomplete tetraplegia included fine motor skills and upper body function, whereas priorities for complete or incomplete paraplegia included standing and walking, and bowel function. The meaningful benefits that are important to achieve are bowel and bladder care, less reliance on caregivers, and maintaining physical health. Perceived potential risks include further loss of function, neuropathic pain, and complications. Barriers to participation in clinical trials include inability to relocate, out-of-pocket expenses, and awareness of therapy. Respondents were more interested in transcutaneous SCS than epidural SCS (80% and 61%, respectively). Conclusion: SCS clinical trial design, participant recruitment, and translation of the technology can be improved by better reflecting the priorities and preferences of those living with SCI identified from this study.

Indexed as

NeuralgiaSpinal Cord InjuriesSpinal Cord StimulationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysical Therapy ModalitiesQuadriplegiaclinical researchclinical trial designcommunity opinionscommunity perspectivescommunity surveyspinal cord injuryspinal cord stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37235197
PMCPMC10208255
OpenAlexW4377970190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.