Search

Introduction: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a catastrophic event with devastating physical, social and occupational consequences for patients and their families. The number of patients with acute SCI in China continues to grow rapidly, but there have been no large prospective cohort studies of patients with acute SCI. This proposed study aims to establish a multicentre, extensive sample cohort of clinical data and biological samples of patients in China, which would aid the systematisation and standardisation of clinical research and treatment of acute SCI, thus reducing the heavy burden of acute SCI on patients and society., Methods and Analysis: The Chinese Real-World Evidence for Acute Spinal Cord Injury (ChiRES) study is an observational, multicentre cohort study of patients with acute SCI admitted to the Qilu Hospital of Shandong University and other participating centres with prospective collection of their clinical data and biological samples. We aim to recruit 2097 patients in this study. Demographics, disease history, emergency intervention information, motor and sensory examinations, surgical information, medication information and rehabilitation evaluation will be recorded. This will facilitate the development of a prediction model for complications and prognosis of patients with acute SCI and an evaluation of the current management of acute SCI. Among these variables, detailed information on surgical treatment will also be used to assess procedures for acute SCI treatment. Outcome measurements, including the International Standard for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury examinations, the occurrence of complications and death, will be performed repeatedly during follow-up. We will analyse imaging data and blood samples to develop SCI imaging markers and biomarkers., Ethics and Dissemination: This study protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Qilu Hospital of Shandong University and all other participating centres. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background Context: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a global health problem with a heavy economic burden. Surgery is considered as the cornerstone of SCI treatment. Although various organizations have formulated different guidelines on surgical treatment for SCI, the methodological quality of these guidelines has still not been critically appraised., Purpose: We aim to systematically review and appraise the current guidelines on surgical treatments of SCI and summarize the related recommendations with the quality evaluation of supporting evidence., Study Design: Systematic review., Methods: Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and online guideline databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2022. The most updated and recent guidelines containing evidence-based or consensus-based recommendations and established by authoritative associations were included. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition instrument containing 6 domains (eg, applicability) was used to appraise the included guidelines. An evidence-grading scale (ie, level of evidence, LOE) was utilized to evaluate the quality of supporting evidence. The supporting evidence was categorized as A (the best quality), B, C, and D (the worst quality)., Results: Ten guidelines from 2008 to 2020 were included, however, all of them acquired the lowest scores in the domain of applicability among all the six domains. Fourteen recommendations (eight evidence-based recommendations and six consensus-based recommendations) were totally involved. The SCI types of the population and timing of surgery were studied. Regarding the SCI types of the population, eight guidelines (8/10, 80%), two guidelines (2/10, 20%), and three guidelines (3/10, 30%) recommended surgical treatment for patients with SCI without further clarification of characteristics, incomplete SCI, and traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS), respectively. Besides, one guideline (1/10, 10%) recommended against surgery for patients with SCI without radiographic abnormality. Regarding the timing of surgery, there were eight guidelines (8/10, 80%), two guidelines (2/10, 20%), and two guidelines (2/10, 20%) with recommendations for patients with SCI without further clarification of characteristics, incomplete SCI, and TCCS, respectively. For patients with SCI without further clarification of characteristics, all eight guidelines (8/8, 100%) recommended for early surgery and five guidelines (5/8, 62.5%) recommended for the specific timing, which ranged from within 8 hours to within 48 hours. For patients with incomplete SCI, two guidelines (2/2, 100%) recommended for early surgery, without specific time thresholds. For patients with TCCS, one guideline (1/2, 50%) recommended for surgery within 24 hours, and another guideline (1/2, 50%) simply recommended for early surgery. The LOE was B in eight recommendations, C in three recommendations, and D in three recommendations., Conclusions: We remind the reader that even the highest quality guidelines often have significant flaws (eg, poor applicability), and some of the conclusions are based on consensus recommendations which is certainly less than ideal. With these caveats, we found most included guidelines (8/10, 80%) recommended early surgical treatment for patients after SCI, which was consistent between evidence-based recommendations and consensus-based recommendations. Regarding the specific timing of surgery, the recommended time threshold did vary, but it was usually within 8 to 48 hours, where the LOE was B to D., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Traumatic spinal injury (TSI) is associated with significant fatality and social burden; however, the epidemiology and treatment of patients with TSI in the US remain unclear., Materials and Methods: An adult population was selected from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2019. TSI incidence was calculated and TSI-related hospitalizations were divided into operative and nonoperative groups according to the treatments received. TSIs were classified as fracture, dislocation, internal organ injury, nerve root injury, or sprain injuries based on their nature. The annual percentage change (APC) was calculated to identify trends. In-hospital deaths were utilized to evaluate the prognosis of different TSIs., Results: Overall, 95 047 adult patients were hospitalized with TSI in the US from 2016 to 2019, with an incidence rate of 48.4 per 100 000 persons in 2019 (95% CI: 46.2-50.6). The total incidence increased with an APC of 1.5% (95% CI: 0.1-3%) from 2016 to 2019. Operative TSI treatment was more common than nonoperative (32.8 vs. 3.8; 95% CI: 32.3-33.2 vs. 3.6-4%). The number of operations increased from 37 555 (95% CI: 34 674-40 436) to 40 460 (95% CI: 37 372-43 548); however, the operative rate only increased for internal organ injury (i.e. spinal cord injury [SCI])-related hospitalizations (APC, 3.6%; 95% CI: 2.8-4.4%). In-hospital mortality was highest among SCI-related hospitalizations, recorded at 3.9% (95% CI: 2.9-5%) and 28% (95% CI: 17.9-38.2%) in the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively., Conclusions: The estimated incidence of TSI in US adults increased from 2016 to 2019. The number of operations increased; however, the proportion of operations performed on TSI-related hospitalizations did not significantly change. In 2019, SCI was the highest associated mortality TSI, regardless of operative or nonoperative treatment., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: To evaluate the most up-to-date burden of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) and analyse their leading causes in different countries/territories., Design: An analysis of Global Burden of Disease (GBD) data., Setting: The epidemiological data were gathered from GBD Results Tool (1 January, 1990─31 December 2019) covering 21 GBD regions and 204 countries/ territories., Participants: Patients with TBI/SCI., Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute numbers and age-standardised rates/estimates of incidence, prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs) of TBI/SCI by location in 2019, with their percentage changes from 1990 to 2019. The leading causes (eg, falls) of TBI/SCI in 204 countries/territories., Results: Globally, in 2019, TBI had 27.16 million new cases, 48.99 million prevalent cases and 7.08 million YLDs. SCI had 0.91 million new cases, 20.64 million prevalent cases and 6.20 million YLDs. Global age-standardised incidence rates of TBI decreased significantly by -5.5% (95% uncertainty interval -8.9% to -3.0%) from 1990 to 2019, whereas SCI had no significant change (-6.1% (-17.3% to 1.5%)). Regionally, in 2019, Eastern Europe and High-income North America had the highest burden of TBI and SCI, respectively. Nationally, in 2019, Slovenia and Afghanistan had the highest age-standardised incidence rates of TBI and SCI, respectively. For TBI, falls were the leading cause in 74% (150/204) of countries/territories, followed by pedestrian road injuries (14%, 29/204), motor vehicle road injuries (5%, 11/204), and conflict and terrorism (2%, 4/204). For SCI, falls were the leading cause in 97% (198/204) of countries/territories, followed by conflict and terrorism (3%, 6/204)., Conclusions: Global age-standardised incidence rates of TBI have decreased significantly since 1990, whereas SCI had no significant change. The leading causes of TBI/SCI globally were falls, but variations did exist between countries/territories. Policy-makers should continue to prioritise interventions to reduce falls, but priorities may vary between countries/territories., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Study Design: Retrospective epidemiological study., Objective: To describe differences based on biological sex in the epidemiology and treatment of the economic burden of traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) in China (2013-2018)., Summary of Background Data: Although there have been many regional single-center studies on TSCI in China, there are few reports involving multicenter data, especially those that report on discrepancies related to biological sex., Materials and Methods: This study is a nationally representative hospital-based retrospective study. The treatment data of TSCI patients in 30 hospitals in 11 provinces/cities from January 2013 to December 2018 were analyzed. Sociodemographic characteristics, accident and related injury characteristics, treatment methods, and hospital costs were obtained. Regression models were used to evaluate differences in the outcomes of interest based on biological sex and other factors., Results: There were 13,465 individuals with TSCI, with a mean age of 50.0 years, and females (52.2) older than males (49.3). Overall, the average ratio of males to females was 3.1:1, ranging from 3.0:1 in 2013 to 2.8:1 in 2018. The overall proportion of patients with TSCI increased from 2013 to 2018 [annual percentage change (APC)=6.8%, 95% CI, 3.3-10.4] ( P < 0.05). The percent increase in females (APC=8.2%, 95% CI, 5.6-10.8) was greater than that of males (APC=6.3%, 95% CI, 2.1-10.6). Overall, high-level falls mainly affected males (30.8%), and low-level falls mainly occurred in females (36.6%). Females demonstrated a higher frequency of thoracolumbar trauma and less severe neurological impairment., Conclusions: This study suggests that although the main population of TSCI is male, the average ratio of males to females is decreasing. The frequency of TSCI may be increasing faster in females than in males. Therefore, it is necessary to develop sex-specific public prevention measures. In addition, more medical resources should be devoted to improving the ability of hospitals to perform early surgery., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background Context: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious health problem which carries a heavy economic burden. Imaging technologies play an important role in the diagnosis of SCI. Although several organizations have developed guidelines for diagnostic imaging of SCI, their quality has not yet been systematically assessed., Purpose: We aim to conduct a systematic review to appraise SCI guidelines and summarize their recommendations for diagnostic imaging of SCI., Study Design: Systematic review., Methods: We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, some guideline-specific databases (eg, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) and Google Scholar from January 2000 to January 2022. We included guidelines developed by nationally recognized organizations. If multiple versions could be obtained, we included the latest one. We appraised included guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition instrument which contains six domains (eg, scope and purpose). We also extracted recommendations and assessed their supporting evidence using levels of evidence (LOE). The evidence was categorized as A (the best quality), B, C, and D (the worst quality)., Results: Seven guidelines (2008-2020) were included. They all received the lowest scores in the domain of applicability. All guidelines (7/7, 100%) recommended magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with SCI or SCI without radiographic abnormality (SCIWORA). A total of 12 recommendations involving patient age (eg, adult and child patients), timing of MRI (eg, as soon as possible and in the acute period), symptoms indicated for MRI (eg, a stiff spine and midline tenderness, suspected disc and posterior ligamentous complex injury, and neurological deficit), and types of MRI (eg, T2-weighted imaging and diffusion tensor imaging) were extracted. Among them, the LOE was C in nine (75%) recommendations and D in three (25%) recommendations., Conclusions: Seven guidelines were included in the present systematic review, and all of them showed the worst applicability scores in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition instrument. They all weakly recommended MRI for patients with suspected SCI or SCIWORA based on a low LOE., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Complications such as pressure sores, pulmonary infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are common after spinal cord injury (SCI). These have serious consequences for patients' physical, social, and vocational well-being. Several authoritative organizations have developed guidelines for managing these complications after SCI., Purpose: We aim to systematically review and appraise guidelines on the management of four common complications (pressure sores, pulmonary infection, UTI, and VTE) after SCI as well as to summarize relevant recommendations and assess the quality of their supporting evidence., Design: Systematic review., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science, as well as guideline-specific databases (eg, National Guideline Clearinghouse) and Google Scholar, from January 2000 to January 2022. We included the most updated guidelines developed by specific authoritative organizations. We evaluated the included guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation 2nd edition instrument, which measures six domains (eg, applicability). Recommendations extracted from guidelines were categorized as for, against, or neither for nor against. An evidence assessment was adopted to classify the quality of supporting evidence as poor, fair, or good., Results: Eleven guidelines from 2005 to 2020 were included, all of which, among the six domains, scored lowest in the domain of applicability. For pressure sores, guidelines recommended for skin inspection, repositioning, and the use of pressure reduction equipment as preventive measures and dressings, debridement, and surgery as treatment measures. For pulmonary infection, guidelines recommended for physical (eg, the use of an insufflation-exsufflation device) and pharmacological measures (eg, the use of bronchodilators). For UTI, guidelines recommended for antibiotics as a treatment measure but recommended against cranberries, methenamine salts, and acidification or alkalinization agents as preventive measures. For VTE prophylaxis, five guidelines recommended for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Three guidelines recommended against unfractionated heparin, whereas one guideline recommended for it. Most of the supporting evidence was of poor quality (130/139), and the rest was of fair quality (9/139)., Conclusions: For pressure sores, pulmonary infection, and UTI, evidence of poor to fair quality indicated consistent recommendations for prevention and treatment measures. For VTE, LMWH was consistently recommended, whereas recommendations on the use of unfractionated heparin were controversial., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Spinal cord injury brings devastating consequences and huge economic burden. Different authoritative organizations have developed different guidelines for pharmacological treatments of spinal cord injury, but there is a lack of a critical appraisal of them. To systematically review and appraise guidelines regarding their recommendations for pharmacological treatments for spinal cord injury. Systematic review. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 2000 to January 2022 as well as guideline-specific databases (eg, Congress of Neurological Surgeons) and Google Scholar. We included the most updated guideline containing evidence-based recommendations or consensus-based recommendations developed by specific authoritative organizations if multiple versions were available. We appraised guidelines through the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition instrument consisting of six domains (eg, applicability). With supporting evidence, recommendations were classified as: for, against, neither for nor against. We utilized an evidence assessment system to categorize the quality of supporting evidence as poor, fair, or good. Eight guidelines developed from 2008 to 2020 were included, but all of them scored lowest in the domain of applicability among all six domains. Twelve pharmacological agents (eg, methylprednisolone) were studied. For methylprednisolone, three guidelines (3/8=37.5%) recommended for (one evidence-based and two consensus-based), three (3/8=37.5%) recommended against (all evidence-based), and two (2/8=25%) recommended neither for nor against. For monosialotetrahexosylganglioside (GM-1), one guideline (1/4=25%) recommended for (consensus-based), one (1/4=25%) recommended against (evidence-based), and two (2/4=50%) recommended neither for nor against. For other agents (eg, minocycline), most guidelines (3/5=60%) recommended neither for nor against, one (1/5=20%) recommended against naloxone (evidence-based) and nimodipine (evidence-based), and one (1/5=20%) recommended for neural growth factor (consensus-based). The quality of most of the supporting evidence was poor, and the rest was fair. There were inconsistencies among recommendations for methylprednisolone and GM-1. Evidence-based recommendations tended to recommend against, whereas consensus-based recommendations tended to recommend for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]