Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40862210›Full record

ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2025

ISNCSCI Exam Changes Following Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Ryan J Solinsky, Daniel D Veith, Megan L Gill, Lisa A Beck, Candee J Mills, Anders J Asp, K A Fernandez, Omid Jahanian, Kristin D Zhao, Peter J Grahn

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

10 authors.

Ryan J SolinskyRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Daniel D VeithRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Megan L GillRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Lisa A BeckRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Candee J MillsRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Anders J AspRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
K A FernandezMayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Omid JahanianRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Kristin D ZhaoRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Peter J GrahnRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Funding

Elucidating spinal sensorimotor network components that underlie recovery of motor functions via lumbosacral epidural electrical stimulation in humans with spinal cord injuryR01NS115877 · NINDS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI GRAHN, PETER JONAS · 2020 to 2024
$3.0M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS115877
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To describe changes in the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) exam in sublesional motor and sensory domains following short-term epidural electrical stimulation of lumbosacral spinal segments in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: Twenty individuals with SCI underwent implantation of percutaneous epidural spinal cord stimulation followed by stimulation parameter optimization and 10-12 sessions of stimulation-enabled motor training. Pre-/postintervention ISNCSCI exams were compared to determine changes in motor/sensory scores for regions within 3 levels of the neurological level of injury (NLI) and caudal to this, with subanalyses per motor/sensory complete versus incomplete baseline status. Results: Individuals with motor complete SCI gained 6% ± 3% of available motor points within 3 levels of NLI and 1% ± 0% of motor points caudal to this ( Discussion: Spinal cord stimulation after SCI rapidly induces changes in both motor and sensory domains that are retained after stimulation is removed. These changes primarily occur within 3 levels of the NLI and occur to a greater degree in those with incomplete SCI.

Indexed as

Neurologic ExaminationSpinal Cord InjuriesSpinal Cord StimulationAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedISNCSCIneuromodulationparalysisspinal cord injuriesspinal cord stimulation

Identifiers

PMID40862210
PMCPMC12376142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.