ArticleSpinal cord series and cases2026
Randomised controlled trials of nursing interventions in spinal cord injury: a scoping review.
Article in Spinal cord series and cases, 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
STUDY
designScoping Review
objectivesRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical interventions. In spinal cord injury (SCI) care, nurses deliver many interventions, yet the number, quality, and level of nurse involvement in RCTs remains unclear. Poorly designed RCTs can introduce bias, and limited nurse participation may restrict the development of evidence-based nursing practice. This review aimed to determine: 1. The number and topics of RCTs on nurse-related interventions for people with SCI; 2. The extent of nurse leadership and participation in these RCTs; 3. The methodological quality of the RCTs.
settingAustralia
methodsThree databases were searched over a 20-year period for RCTs involving people with SCI and interventions relevant to nursing practice. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion. Extracted data included study location, sample size, intervention type, nurse involvement, and authorship by nurses. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/k9xde ), and PRISMA-ScR guidelines informed reporting.
resultsForty-six RCTs were included from 29,744 retrieved articles. Five main intervention categories were identified, with most studies focusing on bladder and wound management. Studies were primarily conducted in Europe, Asia, and North America. Sample sizes ranged from 9 to 489 participants, with a median (IQR) of 61 (37-91). Nurses were authors on 29 out of the 46 trials, and 26% were nurse led. PEDro scores ranged from 2 to 9, with a median (IQR) of 5 (5-6.8).
conclusionsFew RCTs have evaluated nursing interventions for people with SCI. Many studies showed susceptibility to selection bias. Greater nurse leadership and participation in high-quality RCTs are needed to strengthen evidence-based SCI nursing care.
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.