ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024
Evidence based clinical practice guideline for follow-up care in persons with spinal cord injury.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced mapping of the international classification of functioning, disability and health via a mobile app: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2025Trial
- Rehospitalization Burden Profiles After Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Data-Driven Latent Class Analysis of the SCIMS Public-Use Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Current status and future prospects of brain-computer interfaces in the field of neurological disease rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Review
- Musculoskeletal changes and treatments in paediatric spinal cord disorders: A scoping review.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Factors affecting rehabilitation participation in patients with spinal cord injury.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: While it is well-established that follow-up care programs play a crucial role in preventing and early detecting secondary health conditions (SHCs) in persons with spinal cord injury [SCI, including spina bifida (SB)], the availability of evidence-based follow-up care programs remains limited. Under the leadership of the German-speaking Medical Society for Paraplegiology (DMGP), we have developed an evidence based clinical practice guideline for follow-up care of SHCs in persons with SCI and identify research gaps. Methods: This guideline was developed in accordance with the regulations of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF e.V.). To ensure an evidence-based guidance, we utilized the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) generic core set and ICF Core Set for individuals with SCI in long-term context as our foundational framework. We conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify existing recommendations for follow-up care and graded the level of evidence according to relevant instruments. Subsequently, we formulated recommendations and achieved consensus through a structured nominal group process involving defined steps and neutral moderation, while adhering to the criteria outlined in the German guideline development instrument (DELBI). Results: Although there is a fair number of literatures describing prevalence and severity of SHCs after SCI, the amount of literature including recommendations was low (19 for SCI and 6 for SB). Based on the current evidence on prevalence and severity of SHCs and available recommendations, a clinical practice guideline on follow-up care of most relevant SHCs was defined. The recommendations for follow-up care are described in the following chapters: (1) Nervous system; (2) (Neuropathic) pain; (3) Cardiovascular diseases; (4) Respiratory System; (5) Immunological system, vaccination and allergies; (6) Gastrointestinal tract and function; (7) Endocrinological system and nutrition; (8) Urogenital system; (9) Contraception, pregnancy, birth and postpartum care; (10) Musculoskeletal system; (11) Pressure injuries; (12) Psychological health; (13) Medication and polypharmacy. Conclusion: We could successfully establish an evidence based clinical practice guideline for follow-up care of SHCs in individuals with SCI. There is however a notable lack of high-quality recommendations for SCI follow-up care.
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.