ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2025
An Evaluation of International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) Performance Within the Canadian SCI Network.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To describe the performance of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) examination in individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) and nontraumatic spinal cord injury (NTSCI) across Canadian acute and rehabilitation facilities, evaluating timing, completeness, and classification accuracy. Methods: Using the Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry (2015-2022), participants were analyzed across 6 cohorts: (A) TSCI-acute-admission ( Results: Overall, 70% of participants had at least one examination performed, with 76% performed ≤72 hours, 91% ≤7 days, and 9% >7 days. However, 45% were partially complete, primarily missing sensory scores and rectal components ≤7 days. Comparison of TSCI and NTSCI during rehabilitation showed that NTSCI cohorts had significantly more exams at admission and fewer at discharge, with more complete exams. Moreover, age at injury, injury type, mechanism, severity, length of stay, and pain influenced examination performance. Conclusion: This study highlights the need for greater consistency in ISNCSCI examination performance and identifies patient-level barriers to completion. Determining the most effective standardized approach for ISNCSCI use across SCI care, addressing modifiable human/organizational factors, and ensuring comprehensive clinical training will improve the quality of this assessment.
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.