Time-to-enrollment in clinical trials investigating neurological recovery in chronic spinal cord injury: observations from a systematic review and ClinicalTrials.gov database

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• 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

Abstract (original English)

Currently, large numbers of clinical trials are performed to investigate different forms of experimental therapy for patients suffering from chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). However, for the enrollment process, there are different views on how the time period between injury and interventions should be determined. Herein, we sought to evaluate the impact of time-to-enrollment in chronic SCI clinical trials. A data set comprising 957 clinical studies from clinicalTrials.gov was downloaded and analyzed focusing on the eligibility criteria for post-injury time-to-enrollment. We also aggregated individual patient data from nine clinical trials of regenerative interventions for chronic SCI selected by a systematic literature search from 1990 to 2018. Characteristics of the studies were assessed and compared by dividing into three groups based on time-to-enrollment (group 1 ≤ 12 months, group 2 = 12-23 months and group 3 ≥ 24 months). In ClinicalTrials.gov registry, 445 trials were identified for chronic SCI where 87% (385) were unrestricted in the maximum post-injury time for trial eligibility. From systematic literature search, nine studies and 156 patients (group 1 = 30, group 2 = 55 and group 3 = 71) were included. The range of time-to-enrollment was 0.5 to 321 months in those studies. We also observed various degrees of motor and sensory improvement in between three time-to-enro

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

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