ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2023
Spinal Cord Injury Community Personal Opinions and Perspectives on Spinal Cord Stimulation.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motivations and expectations for spinal cord epidural stimulation study participation: perspectives from individuals with spinal cord injury and caregivers.Spinal cord · 2026Trial
- Functional outcomes and participants' perspectives during short-term application of spinal stimulation in individuals with spinal cord injury.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Trial
- 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 · 2026Article
- Electroceuticals for Paralympic Athletes: A Fair Play and Classification Concern?Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Electrical and optogenetic spinal cord stimulation for movement recovery after spinal cord injury.Current opinion in neurology · 2025Review
- Investigating the benefits of artificial neural networks over linear approaches to BMI decoding.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Article
- Article
- Participant Perspectives on an Invasive Spinal Neuromodulation Study for Functional Sensorimotor and Autonomic Restoration in Chronic Thoracic Spinal Cord Injury: A Qualitative Case Series.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Ergogenic effects of spinal cord stimulation on exercise performance following spinal cord injury.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.