ReviewNeurotrauma reports2025
A Community Effort to Develop Common Data Elements for Pre-Clinical Spinal Cord Injury Research.
Review in Neurotrauma reports, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For nearly 350 years, the process of disseminating scientific knowledge has remained largely unchanged. Scientists conduct experiments, analyze the data, and publish their findings in the form of scientific articles. Since the turn of the century, this process has been challenged by numerous open science and data sharing efforts to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and replicability of scientific research. Big data approaches, together with machine learning and artificial intelligence, are frequently used to gain insight into the ever-growing complexity of biological systems and biomedical research. To utilize these approaches and harness the continuously increasing computational power requires data to be both machine readable and, ideally, harmonized across studies. Therein lies the challenge: understanding how to organize and describe data is a critical skill for scientists, yet one that is rarely explicitly taught. Common data elements (CDEs), standardized definitions, and reporting structures for data represent a practical solution to this challenge. With the goal of creating a common language to describe and share pre-clinical spinal cord injury (SCI) research data, the open data commons for SCI, in collaboration with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, kicked off this process with the "Preclinical SCI Common Data Elements (CDE) Workshop," held in conjunction with the National Neurotrauma Symposium in San Francisco, California in June 2024. In this report, we discuss the workshop proceedings, summarize the input provided by the SCI research community, share insights from related CDE efforts, and provide a pragmatic approach to creating CDEs for pre-clinical SCI research.
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.