ReviewSpinal cord2026
Statistical quality in RCTs of technology-based rehabilitation after spinal cord injury: A CHAMP-Based Meta-Research Study.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designCross-sectional meta-research study.
objectivesTechnology-based rehabilitation (TBR) is increasingly used in spinal cord injury (SCI), with a growing number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating its effectiveness. However, inadequate statistical reporting may limit the interpretation, reproducibility, and clinical applicability of findings. This study aimed to evaluate the statistical quality of RCTs investigating TBR interventions in individuals with SCI.
methodsMEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane CENTRAL, PEDro, and Web of Science were searched from 1996 to October 2025. Eligible studies were superiority parallel-arm RCTs involving adults with traumatic or non-traumatic SCI evaluating TBR interventions and explicitly reporting adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Statistical quality was assessed using the Checklist for Statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP), while methodological quality was evaluated using the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool.
resultsEight RCTs were included. Overall, CHAMP compliance was 57.9%, with over 40% of items rated as unclear or not fulfilled. Compliance was highest in the design domain (64.6%) and lower in the analysis (58.8%), interpretation (58.9%), and reporting (50.0%) domains. CHAMP scores ranged from 0.30-0.83. According to RoB 2, one study (12.5%) was judged at low risk of bias, five studies (62.5%) raised some concerns, and two studies (25.0%) were judged at high risk of bias.
conclusionsStatistical quality in RCTs of TBR in SCI is frequently suboptimal despite reported adherence to CONSORT guidelines. Greater transparency in statistical reporting is needed to improve the interpretation, reproducibility, and clinical applicability of rehabilitation 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.