ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation for Functional Rehabilitation After Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Pain Relief: Motor Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury During Routine Outpatient Rehabilitation-A Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Combined repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation for upper limb recovery in chronic incomplete cervical spinal cord injury: protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical spinal cord injury causes severe functional impairment with limited spontaneous recovery, and while spinal cord stimulation has emerged as a promising neuromodulatory strategy, evidence for cervical applications remains fragmented. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review synthesizing preclinical and clinical evidence on cervical spinal cord stimulation for functional rehabilitation following spinal cord injury. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251088804) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, with PubMed, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science searched from inception to July 2025 for animal and human studies of cervical spinal cord stimulation, including epidural, intraspinal, and transcutaneous approaches, reporting functional neurological outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools, and due to substantial heterogeneity, results were synthesized narratively. Thirty-one studies comprising 119 animals and 156 human participants, met inclusion criteria. Across studies, outcome measures such as GRASSP, ISNCSCI, and dynamometry consistently demonstrated improvements in hand strength, dexterity, and voluntary motor activation. Several studies also reported gains in sensory and autonomic function, whereas respiratory outcomes were infrequently assessed. Adjunctive interventions, including cortical stimulation, brain-computer interface priming, and task-specific training frequently augmented recovery. Adverse events were generally mild, although overall risk of bias was predominantly serious. Overall, cervical spinal cord stimulation demonstrates preliminary assistive and therapeutic effects on motor recovery, with additional sensory, autonomic, and potential respiratory benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.