ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis use in the field of spinal cord injury research: A bibliometric analysis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping sex and gender in the landscape of spinal cord injury research: a bibliometric analysis and research framework.Spinal cord · 2025Article
- Priority setting for nutrition research in individuals with spinal cord injury: A protocol for Delphi study among health professionals.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo subvert issues of low sample sizes and high attrition rates and generate epidemiologically-sound evidence, collaborative research-through international consortia and multi-centric studies-and meta-analysis approaches are encouraged in spinal cord injury (SCI) research. We investigated the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) methodology in SCI research and evaluated the quality of evidence across publications we identified.
methodsWe searched the Web of Science Core Collection database by topic without time or language restrictions through 16 December 2022. We identified additional relevant articles through Embase.com. SRMA including human and animal SCI populations were eligible for inclusion. We analyzed data using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. We used the JBI tool (former Joanna Briggs Institute) to assess methodological quality of a subset of 50 randomly selected articles.
resultsWe based our analysis on data from 1'224 documents authored by 5'237 scholars and published in 424 sources between 1985 and 2022. The use of SRMA methodology in the field gained momentum in 2009 and a steady increase followed with an annual growth rate of ≈15%. Our findings indicate major research themes in the field include recovery, SCI management, rehabilitation, and quality of life. Over the past 30 years there has been a shift from SRMA concerning functional recovery, secondary health complications, and quality of life toward biomarkers and neuro-regeneration. The major methodological issues across articles we evaluated included opaquely described search strategies, poorly reported critical appraisals, and insufficiently addressing publication bias. In addition, only one-fifth of articles reported review protocol registration.
conclusionsOur bibliometric analysis clearly shows a rapid increase of SRMA applications in SCI research. We discuss the most important methodological concerns we identified among a randomly selected set of articles and provide guidance for improving adherence to methodological and reporting SRMA guidelines.
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.