TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic review of experimental strategies aimed at improving motor function after acute and chronic spinal cord injury
AU - Gomes-Osman, Joyce
AU - Cortes, Mar
AU - Guest, James
AU - Pascual-Leone, Alvaro
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank Jordi Valles for his invaluable comments. Work on this study was supported by Fenexy Fundacion para la Curacion de Las Lesiones Medulares, Proyecto Volver a Caminar, Lazarus-Fenexy. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers, the National Institutes of Health or the Sidney R. Baer Jr. Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2016.
PY - 2016/3/1
Y1 - 2016/3/1
N2 - While various approaches have been proposed in clinical trials aimed at improving motor function after spinal cord injury in humans, there is still limited information regarding the scope, methodological quality, and evidence associated with single-intervention and multi-intervention approaches. A systematic review performed using the PubMed search engine and the key words "spinal cord injury motor recovery" identified 1973 records, of which 39 were selected (18 from the search records and 21 from reference list inspection). Study phase (clinicaltrials.org criteria) and methodological quality (Cochrane criteria) were assessed. Studies included proposed a broad range of single-intervention (encompassing cell therapies, pharmacology, electrical stimulation, rehabilitation) (encompassing cell therapies, pharmacology, electrical stimulation, rehabilitation) and multi-intervention approaches (that combined more than one strategy). The highest evidence level was for Phase III studies supporting the role of multi-intervention approaches that contained a rehabilitation component. Quality appraisal revealed that the percentage of selected studies classified with high risk of bias by Cochrane criteria was as follows: random sequence generation = 64%; allocation concealment = 77%; blinding of participants and personnel = 69%; blinding of outcome assessment = 64%; attrition = 44%; selective reporting = 44%. The current literature contains a high proportion of studies with a limited ability to measure efficacy in a valid manner because of low methodological strength in all items of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Recommendations to decrease bias are discussed and include increased methodological rigor in the study design and recruitment of study participants, and the use of electrophysiological and imaging measures that can assess functional integrity of the spinal cord (and may be sufficiently sensitive to detect changes that occur in response to therapeutic interventions).
AB - While various approaches have been proposed in clinical trials aimed at improving motor function after spinal cord injury in humans, there is still limited information regarding the scope, methodological quality, and evidence associated with single-intervention and multi-intervention approaches. A systematic review performed using the PubMed search engine and the key words "spinal cord injury motor recovery" identified 1973 records, of which 39 were selected (18 from the search records and 21 from reference list inspection). Study phase (clinicaltrials.org criteria) and methodological quality (Cochrane criteria) were assessed. Studies included proposed a broad range of single-intervention (encompassing cell therapies, pharmacology, electrical stimulation, rehabilitation) (encompassing cell therapies, pharmacology, electrical stimulation, rehabilitation) and multi-intervention approaches (that combined more than one strategy). The highest evidence level was for Phase III studies supporting the role of multi-intervention approaches that contained a rehabilitation component. Quality appraisal revealed that the percentage of selected studies classified with high risk of bias by Cochrane criteria was as follows: random sequence generation = 64%; allocation concealment = 77%; blinding of participants and personnel = 69%; blinding of outcome assessment = 64%; attrition = 44%; selective reporting = 44%. The current literature contains a high proportion of studies with a limited ability to measure efficacy in a valid manner because of low methodological strength in all items of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Recommendations to decrease bias are discussed and include increased methodological rigor in the study design and recruitment of study participants, and the use of electrophysiological and imaging measures that can assess functional integrity of the spinal cord (and may be sufficiently sensitive to detect changes that occur in response to therapeutic interventions).
KW - cell transplantation
KW - electrophysiology
KW - human studies
KW - rehabilitation
KW - spinal cord injury
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959216342&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959216342&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/neu.2014.3812
DO - 10.1089/neu.2014.3812
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26415105
AN - SCOPUS:84959216342
VL - 33
SP - 425
EP - 438
JO - Central Nervous System Trauma
JF - Central Nervous System Trauma
SN - 0897-7151
IS - 5
ER -