ReviewSpinal cord2026
Redefining clinically meaningful improvement in traumatic cervical spinal cord injury: a participant-centered perspective from community feedback sessions.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Through a structured engagement initiative, the North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium (NASCIC) consolidated perspectives from individuals with traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) regarding recovery priorities and the impact of functional gains on daily life. This exploratory outreach effort utilized the NASCIC network to capture community insights with respect to the development of targeted SCI therapies. The group represented a diverse range of lived experiences, with a median time since injury of 12 years (range 4-38). The group distribution (60% AIS A; 40% AIS B) ensured that insights captured the specific challenges of both complete and incomplete high-cervical injuries. Hand/arm function, bowel/bladder control, and trunk stability consistently emerged as top priorities, with participants emphasizing that even small improvements in these areas can be transformative for independence, caregiver burden, and emotional well-being. These insights challenge the traditional regulatory, clinician, and academic focus regarding large, functionally transformative improvements as the sole marker of clinical benefit. The findings support adopting a broader, participant-centered definition of clinically meaningful improvement in SCI and the use of outcome measures that reflect real-world priorities. Barriers to clinical trial participation and evolving expectations post-injury further highlight the need for patient-centered outcome measures and ethical, accessible trial design. Prioritization of participant-centered endpoints and addressing practical barriers to clinical trial participation should be considered in future research.
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.