ArticleSpinal cord2026
Comparison of health outcomes between traumatic spinal cord and cauda equina injuries.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study of prospectively registered and collected data.
objectivesTo compare the outcomes of people with a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) or cauda equina injury (CEI).
settingVictorian State Trauma System, Australia.
methodsPeople from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) with a diagnosis of traumatic SCI below T4 or CEI, with a date of injury from 2010 to December 2022, were included. Participants were divided into two groups; upper motor neuron (UMN) and lower motor neuron (LMN) injury groups. Demographic, injury event, and hospital details were extracted. Follow-up was conducted by the registry up to 24-months post injury, including the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS), EuroQol EQ-5D scale, and return to work.
resultsOf the 1156 participants, 1113 were categorised as UMN, and 43 as LMN. Within both groups, the demographics were similar. Mixed effect regression modelling of the EQ-5D outcomes over time showed little improvement for both groups. The return to work rate was higher for the LMN injury group at all follow-up time points, with 57% of the UMN injury group returning to work at 24 months post-injury compared to 72% of the LMN injury group. At 24 months post-injury, 63% of people in the UMN injury group reported a WHODAS score equal or greater to ten, compared to 65% in the LMN injury group.
conclusionThe patient demographics within the two groups were similar. Overall quality of life outcomes remained similarly poor over time for both groups, with little improvement.
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.