ArticleSpinal cord2025
Passive movement interventions and spasticity outcomes in individuals with spinal cord injury during rehabilitation: a scoping review.
Article in Spinal cord, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designScoping review.
objectivesSpasticity is a common and often challenging sequela of spinal cord injury (SCI) associated with pain, contractures, and reduced quality of life. While passive movement (PM) is primarily used to maintain joint mobility, clinical observations and participant reports suggest that both manual and automated techniques can contribute to the management of spasticity in SCI. However, the evidence base concerning PM's impact on spasticity outcomes in SCI populations remains unclear. This review aims to identify the scope and synthesize the empirical evidence of PM interventions for managing spasticity in individuals with SCI.
methodsSeven databases (Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) were systematically searched. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, reported original data, included adult participants (≥18 years) with SCI, presented a therapeutic intervention consisting solely of PM techniques, and reported any spasticity outcome. Data were extracted and analyzed by two independent reviewers.
resultsThe initial search identified 1628 unique studies, of which 13 were included for analysis. The PM interventions included passive cycling and robotic PM interventions (n = 8), continuous passive motion (n = 4), and manual passive range of motion (PROM) (n = 1). While a minority of studies demonstrated sustained improvements in spasticity outcomes, the majority reported short-term reductions observed in small sample groups, single-session experiments, or using suboptimal research designs.
conclusionThis review assembled the existing evidence on PM interventions for managing spasticity in individuals with SCI. Despite finding consistent short-term improvements, further high-quality research is needed to determine clinical efficacy and inform future rehabilitation practices.
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.