Search

DESIGN:: Prospective 2-year survey from 1 February 1997 to 31 January 1999. OBJECTIVES:: To compare the route from injury to rehabilitation, and the outcome of care in a large sample of traumatic (T) and nontraumatic (NT) spinal cord lesion (SCL) patients at their ‘first admission’. SETTING:: T and NT SCI patients consecutively admitted to 37 SCL centres in Italy. METHOD:: Data were recorded on simple, computerised, closed-question forms, which were Centrally collected and analysed. Descriptive and inferential analysis was conducted to define the characteristics and compare the T and NT populations, and to identify correlations among the variables examined: time from the event to admission (TEA); pressure sores (PS) on admission; length of stay (LoS) and destination on discharge. RESULTS:: A total of 1014 SCL patients, 67.5% with a lesion of T and 32.5% of NT aetiology were analysed. The subjects in the T group were younger (median 34 versus 58 years), with higher probability of cervical involvement (OR 2.47, CI 1.8-3.4) and completeness of the lesion (OR 3.0, CI 2.3-4.0), shorter median TEA(37 versus 64 days, P<0.0001) and less frequent admission from home (3.6 versus 17.4%) compared to the NT group. TEA and PS on admission were analysed as indicators of the efficacy of the courses from injury to rehabilitation. Longer TEA was reported for people with NT aetiology, admitted to rehabilitation centre (RC), not locally resident, transferred from certain wards and to a lesser degree female subjects and those with complications on admission. PS were associated to completeness of lesion, longer TEA, admission to RC, nonlocal residence and coming from general intensive care units, or general surgery wards. Median LoS was 99 days (mean 116 and range 0-672), and was statistically shorter in the NT group (122 versus 57 median, P<0.00001).Upon discharge, bladder and bowel autonomy were, respectively, obtained in 68.1 and 64.5% of the whole population without significant difference between the T and NT groups. A total of 80.2% of patients were discharged home and the following factors: not living alone, being discharged after longer LoS, having sphincterial autonomy and no PS, were all independent predictors of outcome. CONCLUSION:: There are important obstacles in the admission route to rehabilitation facilities, greater for NT, as longer TEA and more complications on admission testify. Moreover, the LoS is shorter for NT population. Our findings suggest that rehabilitation outcome could be improved through an early multidisciplinary approach and better continuity between acute and rehabilitation care, especially for the ‘neglected’ NT SCL patients.Spinal Cord (2003) 41, 620-628. doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3101521 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides information on the Cochrane Neurological Network in Great Britain. Cochrane Neurological Network is an entity of the Cochrane Collaboration, an international not-for-profit organisation made up of more than 10,000 people around the world from over 80 countries. The network aims to help Cochrane Collaboration Review Groups (CRGs) increase the quantity and quality to their output relevant to neurology, neurosurgery, and neurorehabilitation.

The key elements for developing a clinical guideline are (a) guidelines are developed by multidisciplinary groups, (b) they are based on a systematic review of the scientific evidence, and (c) recommendations are explicitly linked to the supporting evidence and graded according to the strength of that evidence. Besides reporting the statistical strength of the randomised controlled trial results, it is necessary to consider the strength of the evidence, the methodological quality of the studies and the external validity by applying a “considered judgement” to the whole amount of the data. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) process for developing guidelines is based on 4 steps: (a) methodological evaluation, (b) synthesis of evidence, (c) considered judgement and (d) grading system. The judgement on grading of recommendations is made on the basis of an (objective) assessment of the study design and quality, and a (perhaps more subjective) judgement of the consistency, clinical relevance and external validity of the evidence. The SPREAD group decided to adopt this methodology starting from the 3rd edition (2003); however, it was agreed to integrate the principles of the SIGN [4] with the statistical considerations on alpha and beta error size suggested by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine methodology [6], to give a more comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence. By being the product of a multidisciplinary approach, being explicit and providing information on the way agreement has been reached or on the reasons of disagreement, the SPREAD guidelines seem to fulfil the needs for shared guidelines, and to avoid the concerns related to pitfalls in the transparency of the process and in the reaching of a consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]