SynthesisThe journal of spinal cord medicine2024
Measurement properties of assessment instruments of quality of life in people with spinal cord injury: A systematic review.
Synthesis in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spinal cord independence measure evidence-based recommendation: a systematic review of measurement properties.Spinal cord · 2026Pooled it
- Early versus late surgical decompression in acute traumatic spinal cord injury: does it impact the quality of life?Spinal cord · 2026Observational
- The effect of health literacy on quality of life in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2026Article
- Assessing self-reported spontaneous lower-extremity use in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury: content validity of the Lower Extremity Motor Activity Log (LE-MAL).Spinal cord series and cases · 2025Article
- The Quality of Life in Patients with Spinal Cord Injury: Assessment and Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextA spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) is a devastating condition that affects all areas of a person's life, including quality of life (QoL). Assessing this construct using clinical instruments with adequate measurement properties is fundamental for an effective multi-professional treatment.
objectiveTo identify the clinical instruments for assessing the QoL that present the best recommendation for use in people with SCI based on their measurement properties.
methodsThe overall methodology was conducted according to Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) systematic review guidance and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A literature search was conducted up to March 2023 on MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Embase databases.
resultsSeventy-seven studies were included in this review, and 49 instruments were identified. The overall methodological quality of all studies ranged from insufficient to sufficient, and the level of evidence ranged from very low to high confidence. Twenty-six instruments may have the potential to be recommended, and the other 23 should not be recommended.
conclusionNone of the QoL instruments can be highly recommended as the most suitable instrument for the construct and population of interest. The generic instruments SF-36, SF-12, QWB, WHOQOL-DIS, WHOQOL-BREF, QLI-SCI, QOLP-PD, LS Questions, Lisat-9, and BRFSS are the clinical instruments that have the best measurement properties tested and have the potential to be the current best recommendation for assessing QoL in individuals with SCI.
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.