Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2026
Current Reporting Practices for Research Involving Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation for Persons Living with Spinal Cord Injuries: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin Garrison, McIntyre Amanda, Bateman Emma A, Nageswaran Luxshmi, Marrocco Stephanie, Collins David, Wolfe Dalton
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique aimed at improving voluntary movement, autonomic function, spasticity, and other complications in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this scoping review is to evaluate reporting practices relating to safety, stimulation parameters, and outcomes among studies employing tSCS among persons living with SCI.
METHODS: CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published up to December 2024. Eligible studies met these criteria: (1) full-length, English-language article; (2) SCI population aged 18+ years; and (3) tSCS intervention. Data extracted included study year, subject characteristics, design, outcomes, adverse events, and stimulation parameters.
RESULTS: Among 2267 studies retrieved from the search, 65 studies met inclusion criteria and were included for review. Of these, 13 (20%) were case studies, 14 (21.5%) were repeated measures, 18 (27.7%) were pre-post, and 20 (30.8%) were controlled trials. Missing stimulation parameters included total intervention time (20.0%), phase of tSCS (13.8%), and pulse width (12.3%). Less commonly omitted were stimulation frequency, time post SCI, total sessions, and session duration detail (all ≤4.6%). Repeated measures study design had the poorest overall reporting of parameters with intervention time missing in 57.1% (8 of 14) studies.
CONCLUSION: These findings highlight a pattern of incomplete reporting across studies, particularly regarding intervention dosage parameters, which may limit the interpretability and reproducibility of results. A comprehensive reporting guide could improve study replication and ensure consistency in both research and clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this scoping review is to evaluate reporting practices relating to safety, stimulation parameters, and outcomes among studies employing tSCS among persons living with SCI.
METHODS: CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published up to December 2024. Eligible studies met these criteria: (1) full-length, English-language article; (2) SCI population aged 18+ years; and (3) tSCS intervention. Data extracted included study year, subject characteristics, design, outcomes, adverse events, and stimulation parameters.
RESULTS: Among 2267 studies retrieved from the search, 65 studies met inclusion criteria and were included for review. Of these, 13 (20%) were case studies, 14 (21.5%) were repeated measures, 18 (27.7%) were pre-post, and 20 (30.8%) were controlled trials. Missing stimulation parameters included total intervention time (20.0%), phase of tSCS (13.8%), and pulse width (12.3%). Less commonly omitted were stimulation frequency, time post SCI, total sessions, and session duration detail (all ≤4.6%). Repeated measures study design had the poorest overall reporting of parameters with intervention time missing in 57.1% (8 of 14) studies.
CONCLUSION: These findings highlight a pattern of incomplete reporting across studies, particularly regarding intervention dosage parameters, which may limit the interpretability and reproducibility of results. A comprehensive reporting guide could improve study replication and ensure consistency in both research and clinical practice.