ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
A Canadian national survey of the medical management of acute traumatic spinal cord injury.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The management of patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) remains a significant challenge, with ongoing debate surrounding the optimal targets for mean arterial pressure (MAP), spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP), and hemoglobin (Hb) transfusion thresholds. This study aimed to identify areas of consensus and discordance in the management strategies employed by Canadian healthcare providers caring for patients with acute SCI. Methods: A comprehensive multi-stage survey was developed and administered to healthcare providers actively involved in the management of acute SCI, including neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, intensive care specialists, trauma surgeons, and emergency medicine physicians. The survey assessed preferences related to MAP, SCPP, and Hb transfusion thresholds, as well as opinions on the need for future research in this area. Results: A total of 71 healthcare providers completed the survey, with a 100% completion rate. The majority of participants were from neurosurgery (38.1%), intensive care (31.0%), and orthopedics (25.4%). While 75.7% of participants routinely set a MAP target, only 7.1% set an SCPP target. The most common Hb transfusion threshold was <7 g/dL (50.7%) for patients with neurological deficits, with the majority (62.3%) maintaining this threshold for all patients. A significant proportion (15.9%) would consider transfusing based on clinical status alone, regardless of the Hb level. Two-thirds of participants (66.7%) believed the current equipoise in transfusion targets warrants a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and 79.5% of these respondents indicated a willingness to enroll patients. Conclusions: This survey highlights the significant variability in the management of acute traumatic SCI, particularly regarding MAP, SCPP, and Hb transfusion thresholds among Canadian healthcare providers. The findings underscore the need for the development of evidence-based guidelines and the implementation of multicenter RCTs to establish best practices and optimize the care of this complex patient population.
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.