ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2025
Recruitment Challenges in Spinal Cord Stimulation Trial for Motor Recovery in Patients with Chronic Complete Spinal Cord Injury.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- VisR Ultrasound for Monitoring Muscle Fatigue with FES-Induced and Volitional Isometric Contraction of the Rectus Femoris in Participants with Uninjured and Injured Spinal Cords.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Harnessing Spinal Cord Stimulation and Neuromodulation for Functional Restoration: From Pain Management to Motor Recovery.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Deep brain stimulation clinical trials: a framework to accelerate recruitment, retention, and technology translation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recruiting participants for clinical trials targeting specific populations, like patients with chronic motor complete spinal cord injuries (SCIs), is challenging. The RESTORES trial evaluated spinal cord stimulation (SCS) combined with robotic neurorehabilitation for motor recovery in this population. This feasibility study enrolled three participants to assess SCS implant safety, synergistic effects of SCS and robotic rehabilitation, and clinical outcomes. Key recruitment barriers included the small patient pool, stringent eligibility criteria, patient skepticism, and logistical and emotional challenges. Strategies to address these challenges encompassed multidisciplinary collaborations with clinical centers, SCI associations, and patient support groups, including pre-surgical counselling and transparent communication. A dedicated clinical research coordinator ensured ethical compliance, logistical support, and participant engagement. Travel reimbursements, family involvement, and peer advocacy fostered accessibility and trust. Of the 115 patients screened, only 3 met the strict eligibility criteria, due to high screening failure rates and participant apprehension. Peer testimonials and family support helped enhance motivation and adherence. Ethical safeguards, like a data safety monitoring board, ensured participant safety and transparency. The RESTORES trial underscores the complexity of recruiting for pioneering interventions while highlighting the importance of tailored, patient-centric strategies. Insights gained will inform future trials and contribute to advancing SCI rehabilitation, offering hope for enhanced neurological recovery and quality of life for individuals with chronic motor complete SCI.
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.