ArticleSpinal cord2023
Early and intensive motor training to enhance neurological recovery in people with spinal cord injury: trial protocol.
Article in Spinal cord, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Additive effect of tDCS and neuromotor recruitment on functional recovery in chronic paraplegia: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Article
- Association between sarcopenia and MCID-defined motor recovery in patients with paraplegia following spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Promotes Spinal Cord Injury Recovery by Regulating Microglia-Mediated Neuroinflammation.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Article
- Using the benefit-harm trade-off method to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of intensive motor training on strength for people with spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2024Article
- Early and Intensive Motor Training for people with spinal cord injuries (the SCI-MT Trial): protocol of the process evaluation.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designProtocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (the SCI-MT trial).
objectivesTo determine whether 10 weeks of intensive motor training enhances neurological recovery in people with recent spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingFifteen spinal injury units in Australia, Scotland, England, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, and Belgium.
methodsA pragmatic randomised controlled trial will be undertaken. Two hundred and twenty people with recent SCI (onset in the preceding 10 weeks, American Spinal Injuries Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A lesion with motor function more than three levels below the motor level on one or both sides, or an AIS C or D lesion) will be randomised to receive either usual care plus intensive motor training (12 h of motor training per week for 10 weeks) or usual care alone. The primary outcome is neurological recovery at 10 weeks, measured with the Total Motor Score from the International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI. Secondary outcomes include global measures of motor function, ability to walk, quality of life, participants' perceptions about ability to perform self-selected goals, length of hospital stay and participants' impressions of therapeutic benefit at 10 weeks and 6 months. A cost-effectiveness study and process evaluation will be run alongside the trial. The first participant was randomised in June 2021 and the trial is due for completion in 2025.
conclusionsThe findings of the SCI-MT Trial will guide recommendations about the type and dose of inpatient therapy that optimises neurological recovery in people with SCI.
trial registrationACTRN12621000091808 (1.2.2021).
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.