Observational studySpinal cord2025
Arm-hand training strategies and therapy dose dimensions during the subacute rehabilitation of people with cervical spinal cord injury: a longitudinal observational study.
Observational study in Spinal cord, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designLongitudinal observational study.
objectivesTo explore motor training strategies, therapy dosage, and motivation in subacute arm-hand rehabilitation for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury and their change over a 6-month rehabilitation period.
settingThree rehabilitation centers in Belgium and the Netherlands.
methodsIndividuals with lesions between C1-Th1 and AIS A-D were included between 4-8 weeks post-injury and observed for three weeks with an eight-week interval. Regular arm-hand training sessions, with at least 25% arm-hand training, were analyzed. Motor training strategies, therapy dosage, and motivation were collected by two trained observers, video recordings and patient-reported outcome measures.
results240 Sessions from thirteen participants (mean age 54.4 ± 12.9; C1-C5; AIS B-D) were included. Analytical training showed the highest active arm-hand use (30.3%), followed by skill training (26.6%). Of the 15 task-oriented components, only multiple movement planes, functional movements, and feedback were used in ≥60% of sessions. Actual session time averaged 78.3% of the planned duration. During the arm-hand session, 52.1% of the time involved active time. Skill training showed the lowest number of repetitions (MED: 66.5). Participants reported low physical fatigue (4/10) and difficulty (4/10) but high motivation (7/10). Limited changes in training variables were observed over six months.
conclusionOur findings reveal a gap between clinical practice and evidence-based guidelines for arm-hand training. Despite its importance, skill training and key task-oriented components are underused. Low perceived difficulty and intensity, contrasted with high motivation, suggest the potential to increase therapy doses for better rehabilitation outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40999111What 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.