ArticleSpinal cord2024
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.
Article in Spinal cord, 2024. 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.
- Article
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
STUDY
designInterviews using the benefit-harm trade-off method and an online survey.
objectivesTo determine the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) of motor training on strength for people with spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingSCI units, Australia.
methodsForty people with recent SCI who had participated in motor training as part of their rehabilitation program (patient participants) and 37 physiotherapists (physiotherapist participants) working in SCI were recruited. The patient participants underwent an iterative process using the benefit-harm trade-off method to determine the SWE of motor training on strength. The physiotherapist participants were given an online survey to determine the SWE for five different scenarios. Both groups considered the SWE of a physiotherapy intervention involving an additional 12 h of motor training for 10 weeks on top of usual care. They were required to estimate the smallest improvement in strength (points on the Total Motor Score of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI) to justify the effort and associated costs, risks or inconveniences of the motor training.
resultsThe median (interquartile range) smallest improvement in strength that patient and physiotherapist participants deemed worth the effort and associated costs, risks or inconveniences of the motor training was 3 (1-5) points, and 9 (7-13) points, respectively.
conclusionsPeople with recent SCI are willing to devote 12 h a week for 10 weeks to motor training in addition to their usual care to gain small changes in strength. Physiotherapists wanted to see greater improvements to justify the intervention.
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.