ReviewBreathe (Sheffield, England)2026
Respiratory consequences of cervical spinal cord injury: insights from preclinical models.
Review in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 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
Respiratory dysfunction is one of the most common acute medical issues after cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI) and is considered a leading cause of reduced quality of life for long-term survivors. After cSCI, disruption of descending respiratory drive, impairment of respiratory muscle recruitment and altered airway protection combine to reduce ventilatory capacity and cough effectiveness, increasing the risk of atelectasis, pneumonia and ventilator dependence. Although modern intensive care and pulmonary rehabilitation have improved survival, respiratory complications remain a leading driver of hospitalisation, long-term disability and healthcare costs after cSCI. These clinical limitations highlight the need to explore novel therapeutic strategies and mechanistic targets that cannot be systematically tested in human studies and therefore require rigorous evaluation in preclinical models. This review synthesises clinical and preclinical evidence on how cervical injury compromises breathing, with emphasis on insights from experimental models that permit controlled manipulation of lesion level, severity and laterality to link specific injury characteristics to respiratory dysfunction. In particular, we outline the neural control of respiration (highlighting autonomous and volitional pathways linked to spinal respiratory motor pools), summarise the clinical trajectory of respiratory impairment and, finally, provide a comparison of widely used preclinical models, from their typical characteristic patterns of respiratory dysfunction to the lesion pathology that shapes recovery and interpretation of therapeutic studies.
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.