ArticleMedicine2026
Pharmacological and device-based interventions for paraplegia: A ClinicalTrials.gov-based analysis.
Article in Medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paraplegia, resulting from spinal cord injury or neurological disease, presents significant challenges in long-term care and rehabilitation. Effective therapeutic strategies are crucial for improving mobility, reducing complications, and enhancing quality of life. To systematically analyze clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov that investigate pharmacological, device-based, and procedural interventions for individuals with paraplegia. A retrospective analysis of 84 paraplegia-related clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted on July 3, 2025. Studies were categorized by type (interventional or observational), intervention class (pharmacological, device-based, behavioral, biological, or procedural), and primary outcome focus. Emphasis was placed on interventional trials (n = 61), with descriptive analyses of sample size, enrollment range, and outcome categories. Among the 84 included studies, 61 (73%) were interventional and 23 (27%) were observational. Device-based interventions (n = 30) were the most frequently investigated and included exoskeleton-assisted walking, functional electrical stimulation, and robotic rehabilitation systems. Pharmacological interventions (n = 10) targeted spasticity, neuroprotection, and cardiovascular regulation. Behavioral interventions (n = 7) emphasized patient engagement and rehabilitation planning, while biological and procedural therapies (n = 7) focused on neurostimulation and regenerative strategies. Primary outcomes most commonly assessed mobility/function (n = 13), safety (n = 9), and cardiometabolic parameters (n = 6), with many studies reporting small sample sizes. Clinical trials in paraplegia research are increasingly centered on pharmacological and device-supported interventions aimed at enhancing motor recovery and minimizing secondary disability. While variability in sample size and outcome measures exists, this analysis highlights promising directions for optimizing long-term management of paraplegia. Greater standardization in trial design and outcome reporting will be essential for advancing therapeutic effectiveness and clinical applicability.
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.