ReviewNeurotrauma reports2025
Optimization of Spinal Cord Perfusion Pressure for Improvement of Neurological Outcome in Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal hemodynamic management of traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) is not well established. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with acute tSCI to assess the role of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) and to identify factors predictive of neurological improvement. Three studies involving 46 patients with acute tSCI, lumbar drain placement with CSFD, and available pre- and post-intervention American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale or International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) motor scores were identified. One study was analyzed separately (Cohort A) using ASIA grade because post-intervention ISNCSCI motor scores were not reported. In the remaining two studies (Cohort B), two independent meta-analyses with meta-regressions were performed to determine the mean difference in ISNCSCI motor scores by CSFD and time to decompression. Individual patient data were used for all analyses. In Cohort A, there was no significant difference in ASIA grade before lumbar CSFD and at the last follow-up (Wilcoxon signed rank test:
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.