ArticleNeuroepidemiology2026
A Comparative Study of Discrepancies between Global Burden of Disease Estimates and Published Literature on Spinal Cord Injury Incidence at the Country Level: Methodological Insights and Future Directions.
Article in Neuroepidemiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe inclusion of spinal cord injury (SCI) in the Global Burden of Diseases (GBD) study in 2016 as a distinct entity represented a significant milestone in recognizing and quantifying its global health impact. The study's purpose was to quantify the discrepancies between SCI incidence rates estimated by the GBD and those reported in published literature to assess the external validity of GBD outputs at the country level and propose methodological refinements to improve their utility for policymakers, clinicians, and global health stakeholders.
methodsWe compared GBD 2016, 2019, and 2021 country-level SCI incidence estimates with data from 10 systematic reviews and a scoping search in Embase. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they explicitly reported both case counts and incidence rates of SCI at the country level. Two authors checked the data for accuracy and reliability purposes. We categorized studies into two periods - pre-2000 and 2000 to 2024 - to align with key GBD benchmark years: 1990 for pre-2000 data, and 2016, 2019, and 2021 for post-2000 data. A meta-analysis calculated SCI incidence rates for each country across two timeframes (pre-2000 and 2000-2024). We then computed a discrepancy ratio (DR) by dividing GBD estimates by literature-based rates, categorizing discrepancies as low (DR < 2), moderate (2 to <5), substantial (5 to <10), or significant (DR > 10). Further analysis explored countries with national registries, the impact of prehospital mortality, and GBD's SCI definition and reporting methodology.
resultsIn our analysis of 30 countries, we identified a high proportion of significant (50%) and substantial (23.4%) discrepancies relative to GBD 2016 estimates. When compared against GBD 2021 data, significant discrepancies decreased to 6.6%, though substantial discrepancies rose to 50%; indicating an overall improvement but persistent overestimation. Japan, South Africa, Taiwan, and Tanzania showed low discrepancies, while Denmark, France, Italy, and Spain continued to have significant discrepancies in GBD 2021. We identified three key areas for GBD improvement: unclear inclusion of non-traumatic SCI, lack of incidence stratification by severity, and omission of sports-related SCI as a distinct etiology.
conclusionEarly GBD SCI estimates were often overestimates, but continuous methodological refinements are leading to better alignment with real-world data. Future GBD reports should further enhance interpretability by integrating injury severity data and a more granular breakdown of SCI etiologies.
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.