ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2025
International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury: Classification Questions and Cases.
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.
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.
- Treatment and prognosis of spinal cord reperfusion injury after cervical spinal canal stenosis surgery: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) have been refined through the years and continue to evolve with advances in the field. The International Standards Committee of the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) is responsible for maintaining, continually reviewing, and updating the ISNCSCI. Questions from spinal cord injury (SCI) professionals are frequently submitted to ASIA for review by the International Standards Committee. Methods: Of the questions submitted to the International Standards Committee, 5 were selected for this article, as they relate to common areas of confusion, address challenging classification concepts, and have not previously been described. Representative cases were also created to reinforce classification rules and the committee's recommendations. Cases: The 5 questions/cases address ISNCSCI classification in the setting of (1) AIS E grade, (2) tendon transfer, (3) spinal cord stimulation, (4) nontraumatic SCI (ntSCI) etiology, and (5) AIS D grade (vs. AIS B) based on the presence of non-key muscle function. Each case includes a detailed review of the correct classification components and thorough discussion of the impact the corresponding question has on the classification. Conclusion: The International Standards Committee provides answers to questions about ISNCSCI classification. The scenarios presented in this article address important classification rules and challenging concepts that have not previously been described. This article can serve as a useful reference when similar cases are encountered in clinical and research settings.
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.