SynthesisSpinal cord2026
Spinal cord independence measure evidence-based recommendation: a systematic review of measurement properties.
Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic Review (PROSPERO CRD42022297211).
objectivesTo evaluate the measurement properties of Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) versions and to derive recommendations.
methodsWe followed the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) and adapted criteria for non-PROM to conduct the review and derive SCIM evidence-based recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and Lilacs databases were searched (November 2025). Studies reporting the development or evaluation of any SCIM measurement properties were included. We used the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool and the Criteria for Good Measurement Properties to critically appraise the studies and to summarise and rate the measurement properties. Evidence levels were established using a modified GRADE system.
resultsThe review included 50 articles, reporting five SCIM versions and 127 individual measurement property studies. The SCIM SR presented low-level evidence for sufficient content validity. The SCIM II, III, SR and IV presented high-level evidence for sufficient criterion validity and indeterminate structural validity. The SCIM III, SR and IV presented high-level evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The SCIM SR also presented high-level evidence for sufficient reliability. Moderate-level evidence for sufficient reliability was presented by SCIM II, III and IV, and for measurement error by SCIM III and SR.
conclusionsNone of the SCIM versions fully fit all the COSMIN criteria for recommendation. The SCIM III, SR, and IV present the highest evidence levels for most measurement properties. Additionally, the SCIM SR meets the criteria for potential recommendation for having at least low-level evidence for sufficient content validity. SPONSORSHIP: UDESC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41444784What 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.