Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

A Review on the Etiology and Management of Pediatric Traumatic Spinal Cord Injuries

Benmelouka A., Shamseldin LS., Nourelden AZ., Negida A.

Narrative Review on Spinal Cord Injury, Neuroinflammation, published in Adv J Emerg Med (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Adv J Emerg Med (2020)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
32322796
PMCID
PMC7163256
DOI
10.22114/ajem.v0i0.256
Citations
8

Abstract (original English)

Context Pediatric traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is an uncommon presentation in the emergency department. Severe injuries are associated with devastating outcomes and complications, resulting in high costs to both the society and the economic system. Evidence acquisition The data on pediatric traumatic spinal cord injuries has been narratively reviewed. Results Pediatric SCI is a life-threatening emergency leading to serious outcomes and high mortality in children if not managed promptly. Pediatric SCI can impose many challenges to neurosurgeons and caregivers because of the lack of large studies with high evidence level and specific guidelines in terms of diagnosis, initial management and of in-hospital treatment options. Several novel potential treatment options for SCI have been developed and are currently under investigation. However, research studies into this field have been limited by the ethical and methodological challenges. Conclusion Future research is needed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the recent uprising neurodegenerative techniques in SCI population. Owing to the current limitations, there is a need to develop novel trial methodologies that can overcome the current methodological and ethical limitations.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research