SynthesisScientific reports2025
Trunk kinematics during seated functional activities in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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.
- Comparing Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Added to Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis with Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis Alone on Pain, Trunk Control, and Respiratory Function in Chronic Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review with meta-analysis compared the differences in trunk kinematics between persons living with spinal cord injury (PwSCI) and non-SCI individuals during sitting-based daily activities. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL-PLUS and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies from inception up until 22nd March 2024. A total of 36 studies with 444 participants (mean age 38.9 ± 8.4 years; 361 males) were included, of whom 272 had AIS A/B classification, with injury levels ranging from C4 to L2. Three main tasks were identified: reaching, transfers, and wheeling. Four studies reported data on trunk displacement and a meta-analysis indicated that healthy controls showed significantly greater trunk displacement than SCI participants in forward-reaching tests (SMD = 2.07; 95% CI = 0.42-3.72; P = 0.01). Forward flexion and trunk rotation might be useful strategies to compensate for muscle weakness during transfers and wheelchair propulsion. SCI participants showed reduced trunk displacement during reaching compared to controls, indicating impaired trunk control and sitting balance. Transfer and wheeling trunk strategies vary based on muscle function. Further research on trunk kinematics is needed to guide rehabilitation tailored to individual abilities.
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.