ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2024
Are Clinical Prediction Rules Used in Spinal Cord Injury Care? A Survey of Practice.
Article in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model for Functional Independence in Spinal Cord Injury: Protocol for a Predictive Rule Development and Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Rethinking Movement: From Capacity to Context.Kinesiology review (Champaign, Ill.) · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate outcome prediction is desirable post spinal cord injury (SCI), reducing uncertainty for patients and supporting personalized treatments. Numerous attempts have been made to create clinical prediction rules that identify patients who are likely to recover function. It is unknown to what extent these rules are routinely used in clinical practice. Objectives: To better understand knowledge of, and attitudes toward, clinical prediction rules amongst SCI clinicians in the United Kingdom. Methods: An online survey was distributed via mailing lists of clinical special interest groups and relevant National Health Service Trusts. Respondents answered questions about their knowledge of existing clinical prediction rules and their general attitudes to using them. They also provided information about their level of experience with SCI patients. Results: One hundred SCI clinicians completed the survey. The majority (71%) were unaware of clinical prediction rules for SCI; only 8% reported using them in clinical practice. Less experienced clinicians were less likely to be aware. Lack of familiarity with prediction rules was reported as being a barrier to their use. The importance of clinical expertise when making prognostic decisions was emphasized. All respondents reported interest in using clinical prediction rules in the future. Conclusion: The results show widespread lack of awareness of clinical prediction rules amongst SCI clinicians in the United Kingdom. However, clinicians were positive about the potential for clinical prediction rules to support decision-making. More focus should be directed toward refining current rules and improving dissemination within the SCI community.
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.