ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2025
Diagnosis and management of cardiometabolic disease after spinal cord injury: Identifying gaps in physician training and practices.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2025. 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.
- Routine Laboratory Parameters in the Differentiation of Spinal Cord Infarction and Seronegative Acute Myelitis: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
contextCardiometabolic disease (CMD) frequently occurs in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), with growing awareness surrounding the expansive scope of this problem. As CMD has significant morbidity and mortality, early guidelines-based screening and management have been established. However, the extent to which these guidelines have been adopted are unclear.
objectiveDescribe physicians' screening and management pattern for CMD in patients with SCI, as compared to SCI-specific CMD screening guidelines, and elucidate variables linked to screening and management patterns.
methodsSCI medicine-boarded physicians were surveyed on screening timing for CMD following acute SCI, along with their practice pattern and comfort level managing common CMD risk factors.
resultsOf the forty-seven SCI medicine physicians that responded, 62% felt the ideal timing for CMD screening is 6 months after the acute injury. Of these same physicians, few were screening for insulin resistance and lipid dysregulation prior to 6 months after injury. In addition, less than half felt comfortable writing new prescriptions for anti-glycemic and anti-lipid medications. Furthermore, no association was found between the amount of CMD education with screening or management patterns. Finally, VA-based providers were more likely to screen for CMD within 6 months of injury and were more comfortable managing/starting anti-glycemic medications and statins.
conclusionsDespite the presence of SCI-specific CMD guidelines, gaps in screening and management practices still exist, most notably with insulin resistance and lipid dysregulation. VA-based providers generally screen and manage CMD risk factors more effectively, and further CMD education could consider emulating VA training modules.
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.