SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Best-evidence summary of pulmonary rehabilitation strategies for adult patients with cervical spinal cord injury: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically sort out the relevant evidence on pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) at home and abroad, and provide evidence-based basis for clinical staff. Methods: The PIPOST (Population, Intervention, Professional, Outcome, Setting, Type of evidence) method was used to identify evidence-based questions. According to the "6S" pyramid evidence model, we systematically searched major Chinese and international databases, including MJ Best Practice, UpToDate, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and SinoMed. Inclusion criteria were adult patients (18 years or older) with CSCI and study types including expert consensus, clinical guidelines, evidence summaries, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and clinical decisions published in Chinese or English. Exclusion criteria were conference papers, guideline interpretations, and articles with unobtainable full text. Two team members independently completed quality assessment using corresponding evaluation tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute, extracted relevant evidence, and summarized and graded the evidence according to the Joanna Briggs Institute evidence grading system. The search time limit was from database establishment to December 31, 2025. Results: A total of 19 articles were included: 1 expert consensus, 1 guideline, 9 RCTs, 1 clinical decision, and 7 systematic reviews. After comprehensive analysis, 29 pieces of best evidence were extracted, covering 9 aspects including pulmonary rehabilitation team establishment, timing of rehabilitation, assessment methods, positioning management, and exercise training. Evidence level distribution: Level 1b ( Conclusion: The best evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with CSCI summarized in this study is scientific and practical, which can provide a reference for clinical practice. Systematic review registration: CRD420261376955.
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.