Observational studyBMJ open2025
What drives clinic follow-up after traumatic spinal injury? An observational cohort study from Tanzania.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Traumatic Spine Injury in Southern Ethiopia: Falls, Delayed Presentation, and High Early Mortality at a Tertiary Referral Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate factors associated with clinic follow-up after traumatic spinal injury (TSI) in Tanzania, focusing on demographic, injury-related and hospital variables. We hypothesised that socioeconomic and injury-specific factors would predict follow-up adherence.
designRetrospective observational cohort study.
settingTertiary government referral centre for neurosurgery and orthopaedics in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
participants443 adults with TSI admitted between September 2016 and October 2021. Inclusion criteria included survival to discharge and availability of the discharge date. Patients with missing data were excluded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were any clinic follow-up and 1-year follow-up post-discharge. Secondary outcome was time to loss of follow-up. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with follow-up, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis assessed follow-up duration.
resultsOf 443 patients (85.8% male, median age 34 years), 52.4% returned for follow-up. Independent factors associated with return included private insurance (adjusted OR (aOR) 2.69, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.45, p=0.005), involvement in a road traffic accident (aOR 2.15, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.83, p=0.009), lumbar injuries (aOR 2.26, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.00, p=0.004), neurological improvement at discharge (aOR 3.52, 95% CI 1.72 to 7.64, p=0.001) and hospital stays shorter than 24 days (aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.47, p=0.022). Among those who returned, only 25.4% completed 1 year of follow-up. Predictors of 1-year follow-up included being female (aOR 4.87, 95% CI 2.31 to 10.56, p<0.001) and having American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale B-D versus E at admission (aOR 2.49, 95% CI 1.10 to 6.00, p=0.034). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that only 13.3% remained in follow-up at 12 months.
conclusionFollow-up after TSI in this low- and middle-income country setting is poor, with fewer than one in eight patients completing 1 year. Private insurance, injury mechanism, neurological improvement and female sex predicted follow-up. Targeted efforts are needed to improve long-term care engagement.
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.