Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39314837›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024

Evidence based clinical practice guideline for follow-up care in persons with spinal cord injury.

Inge Eriks-Hoogland, Lorena Müller, Michael Baumberger, Burkhart Huber, Franz Michel, Celina Belfrage, Hicham Elmerghini, Mide Veseli-Abazi, Ralf Böthig, Kai Fiebag and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Inge Eriks-HooglandDepartment of Paraplegiology, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Lorena MüllerDepartment of Health Services and Clinical Care, Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Michael BaumbergerDepartment of Paraplegiology, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Burkhart HuberDepartment of Traumatology, AUVA Rehabilitation Centre, Häring, Austria, Switzerland.
Franz MichelDepartment of Paraplegiology, REHAB Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Celina BelfrageDepartment of Paraplegiology, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Hicham ElmerghiniDepartment of Paraplegiology, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Mide Veseli-AbaziDepartment of Paraplegiology, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Ralf BöthigCentre for Spinal Injuries, BG Trauma Hospital Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Kai FiebagCentre for Spinal Injuries, BG Trauma Hospital Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Roland ThietjeCentre for Spinal Injuries, BG Trauma Hospital Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Xavier JordanDepartment of Paraplegiology, Clinique Romande de Réadaptation, Sion, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

guidelinelifelong follow-up careoutpatient carepreventionspina bifidaspinal cord diseasespinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID39314837
PMCPMC11417090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.