Assessments covering neurological functioning, mobility, and self-care are used in clinical practice during first rehabilitation of patients with SCI, while others covering autonomic functioning, pain, participation, or quality of life are still missing. Based on these observations and national and international requirements, a meaningful standard for an assessment toolkit, applicable in general and in specific subgroups, needs to be defined and implemented.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) can lead to dramatic physiological changes which can be a factor in developing secondary health conditions and might be reflected in biomarker changes in this elevated risk group. We focused specifically on the endocrine and inflammation profile differences between SCI and able-bodied individuals (ABI). Our aim was to determine the differences in inflammatory markers and endocrine profiles between SCI and ABI. We systematically searched 4 electronic databases for relevant studies. Human observational (cross-sectional, cohort, case–control) studies that compared biomarkers of interest between SCI and ABI population were included. Weighted mean difference between SCI and ABI was calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was computed using I2 statistic and chi-squared test. Study quality was evaluated through the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The search strategy yielded a total of 2,603 studies from which 256 articles were selected for full-text assessment. Sixty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis. SCI individuals had higher levels of pro-inflammatory C-reactive protein and IL-6 than ABI. Creatinine and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels were lower in SCI than ABI. Total testosterone levels and IGF-1 were also found to be lower, while cortisol and leptin levels were higher in SCI when compared to ABI. Accordingly, meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and leave-one-out analysis were performed, however, they were only able to partially explain the high levels of heterogeneity. Individuals with SCI show higher levels of inflammatory markers and present significant endocrinological changes when compared to ABI. Moreover, higher incidence of obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, and hypogonadism in SCI individuals, together with decreased creatinine levels reflect some of the readily measurable aspects of the phenotype changes in the SCI group. These findings need to be considered in anticipating medically related complications and personalizing SCI medical care.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Examinations and assessments can be used to ensure good quality rehabilitation. Within the framework of a quality improvement project, the aims of the current analysis were: first, to analyse the time points of selected examinations and assessments in the rehabilitation process of patients with a newly acquired spinal cord injury. Second, to identify differences between the subgroups with different aetiologies, levels and completeness of spinal cord injuries. And third, to compare the examinations and assessments performed with the guideline recommendations and to use discrepancies as a starting point for a quality improvement project. METHODS: In this retrospective chart analysis, adult patients with a newly acquired spinal cord injury who were admitted to a single specialised acute care and rehabilitation clinic for their first rehabilitation between December 2013 and December 2014 were included and assessed until discharge. The main objective was to assess the time to examinations or assessments after injury or hospital admission in comparison to the respective recommendations. Analyses were done using time-to-event analysis and represented graphically using Kaplan-Meier plots.RESULTS: Of the 105 patients included in this study (median age 58 years, 29% female), 61% had a traumatic and 39% a non-traumatic spinal cord injury; 39% were paraplegic and 61% were quadriplegic; and 59% had a motor complete and 41% a sensor-motor incomplete spinal cord injury. The percentage of patients for whom the respective assessment or examination was performed and the percentage of these patients for whom it performed within the recommended time were: 90% and 71% for magnetic resonance imaging; 85% and 90% for computed tomography; 87% and 79% for the manual muscle test; 95% and 59% for the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord (ISNCSCI); 84% and 50% for electrophysiological assessment; 73% and 90% for urodynamic testing; and 49% and 53% for lung function testing. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a relevant gap between recommendations and clinical routine for time to some assessments after spinal cord injury. Within the framework of a quality improvement project, the next steps should be to build a national and international consensus on specific time frames for examinations and assessments in patients with a newly acquired spinal cord injury and thereafter, to develop an institutional implementation strategy.

The aim of this study was to describe the needs and research priorities of Swiss children/adolescents and young adults (from here, “young people”) with spinal cord injury/disorder (SCI/D) or spina bifida (SB) and their parents in the health and life domains as part of the international Pan-European Pediatric Spinal Cord Injury (PEPSCI) collaboration. Surveys included queries about the satisfaction, importance, research priorities, quality of life (QoL), and characteristics of the young people. Fifty-three surveys with corresponding parent-proxy reports were collected between April and November 2019. The self-report QoL sum scores from young people with SCI/D and SB were 77% and 73%, respectively. Parent-proxy report QoL sum scores were lower, with 70% scores for parents of young people with SCI/D and 64% scores for parents of young people with SB. “Having fun”, “relation to family members”, and “physical functioning” were found to be highly important for all young people. “Physical functioning”, “prevention of pressure injuries”, “general health”, and “bowel management” received the highest scores for research priority in at least one of the subgroups. As parents tend to underestimate the QoL of their children and young people prioritized research topics differently, both young peoples’ and caregivers’ perspectives should be included in the selection of research topics.