scholarly journals Common data elements for spinal cord injury clinical research: a National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke project

Spinal Cord ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Biering-Sørensen ◽  
S Alai ◽  
K Anderson ◽  
S Charlifue ◽  
Y Chen ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 787-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Fisher ◽  
L. Krisa ◽  
D.M. Middleton ◽  
B.E. Leiby ◽  
J.S. Harrop ◽  
...  

Spinal Cord ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Biering-Sørensen ◽  
S Charlifue ◽  
M J DeVivo ◽  
S T Grinnon ◽  
N Kleitman ◽  
...  

Spinal Cord ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl M. Zipser ◽  
Konstantinos Margetis ◽  
Karlo M. Pedro ◽  
Armin Curt ◽  
Michael Fehlings ◽  
...  

AbstractDegenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common non-traumatic spinal cord disorder and characterized by progressive neurological impairment. Generally, it is still underdiagnosed and referral to spine specialists is often late, when patients already present with incomplete cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). To improve early diagnosis and accelerate referral, diagnostic criteria for DCM are required. Recently, AO Spine RECODE- DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) (aospine.org/recode), an international, interdisciplinary and interprofessional initiative, including patients with DCM, was funded with the aim to accelerate knowledge discovery that can change outcomes. In this perspective we advocate for the participation of SCI specialists in this process, where the expertise and perspective on this disorder and requirements for the diagnostic and therapeutic work up is well developed.


2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fin Biering-Sørensen ◽  
Susan Charlifue ◽  
Michael DeVivo ◽  
Stacie Grinnon ◽  
Naomi Kleitman ◽  
...  

Spinal Cord ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
M J Mulcahey ◽  
L C Vogel ◽  
M Sheikh ◽  
J C Arango-Lasprilla ◽  
M Augutis ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 107385842096627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petr Krupa ◽  
Ahad M. Siddiqui ◽  
Peter J. Grahn ◽  
Riazul Islam ◽  
Bingkun K. Chen ◽  
...  

Evidence from preclinical and clinical research suggest that neuromodulation technologies can facilitate the sublesional spinal networks, isolated from supraspinal commands after spinal cord injury (SCI), by reestablishing the levels of excitability and enabling descending motor signals via residual connections. Herein, we evaluate available evidence that sublesional and supralesional spinal circuits could form a translesional spinal network after SCI. We further discuss evidence of translesional network reorganization after SCI in the presence of sensory inputs during motor training. In this review, we evaluate potential mechanisms that underlie translesional circuitry reorganization during neuromodulation and rehabilitation in order to enable motor functions after SCI. We discuss the potential of neuromodulation technologies to engage various components that comprise the translesional network, their functional recovery after SCI, and the implications of the concept of translesional network in development of future neuromodulation, rehabilitation, and neuroprosthetics technologies.


2011 ◽  
Vol 259 (6) ◽  
pp. 1142-1150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katayun Hassanpour ◽  
◽  
Sabina Hotz-Boendermaker ◽  
Petra Dokladal ◽  
Armin Curt

Author(s):  
Søren Krogh ◽  
Anette B. Jønsson ◽  
Per Aagaard ◽  
Helge Kasch

Objective: To determine the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation vs sham stimulation on improving lower-limb functional outcomes in individuals with neurological disorders.  Data sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus databases were searched from inception to 31 March 2020 to identify papers (n = 1,198). Two researchers independently reviewed studies for eligibility. Randomized clinical trials with parallel-group design, involving individuals with neurological disorders, including lower-limb functional outcome measures and published in scientific peer-reviewed journals were included.  Data extraction: Two researchers independently screened eligible papers (n = 27) for study design, clinical population characteristics, stimulation protocol and relevant outcome measures, and assessed study quality. Data synthesis: Studies presented a moderate risk of selection, attrition and reporting bias. An overall effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was found for outcomes: gait (effect size [95% confidence interval; 95% CI]: 0.51 [0.29; 0.74], p = 0.003) and muscle strength (0.99 [0.40; 1.58], p = 0.001) and disorders: stroke (0.20 [0.00; 0.39], p = 0.05), Parkinson’s disease (1.01 [0.65; 1.37], p = 0.02) and spinal cord injury (0.50 [0.14; 0.85], p = 0.006), compared with sham. No effect was found for outcomes: mobility and balance. Conclusion: Supplementary repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may promote rehabilitation focused on ambulation and muscle strength and overall lower-limb functional recovery in individuals with stroke, Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injury. Further evidence is needed to extrapolate these findings. a


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document