ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2025
Clarifications of the Motor Level Definition in the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury in Not Clinically Testable Myotomes.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI), two approaches for determining motor levels (MLs) in not clinically testable myotomes (C2-C4, T2-L1, S2-S5) are described: one where the motor level follows the sensory level (MFSL) and another deriving motor function from sensory function (MFSF). Their results differ when (1) all key muscles of an upper (or upper and lower) extremity are scored as intact, (2) sensation is not normal in key muscle segments, and (3) a contiguous region of normal sensation starts at T2 (or S2). Objectives: This work aims to characterize these cases and to discuss explanations. Methods: We analyzed 1330 early and late ISNCSCI assessments of 665 individuals from EMSCI. Results: Forty-nine (3.6% of all 2660 MLs) MFSL (63.3% T1, 36.7% S1) and MFSF MLs from 34 individuals differed without consequences on ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grades (4 AIS A, 1 AIS B, 29 AIS D). In 16 AIS D cases, all testable motor functions were intact, with a mean Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) total score of 95.67 ± 3.51 in 3 individuals with MFSL-ML T1 and 100 in 5 individuals with MFSL-ML S1. The MFSF-MLs are on average 9.63 ± 7.50 (T1: 12.16 ± 8.43; S1: 5.28 ± 1.36) segments caudal to the sensory level (SL). Conclusion: We identified and characterized rare cases with an unusual sensory impairment pattern, which could be explained by an isolated damage of afferent spinal tracts or the presence of non-SCI conditions. Further investigations of these case are necessary for a more conclusive ML definition.
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.