P W New1, F Simmonds, T Stevermuer. 1. Spinal Rehabilitation Unit, Caulfield Hospital, Caulfield, Victoria, Australia. p.new@cgmc.org.au
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A limitation of many studies of non-traumatic spinal cord injury (NT-SCI) and traumatic spinal cord injury (T-SCI) is potential lack of generalizability because of selection bias. An open cohort study using a national rehabilitation database was planned to address this. OBJECTIVE: To compare the demographic characteristics and outcomes between NT-SCI and T-SCI patients. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospitals in Australia. METHODS: The Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre maintains a national database of information on in-patients admitted to almost all (130/145 as at 2006) public and private rehabilitation hospitals in Australia. It collects a range of demographic and clinical outcomes. Patients were included if they were discharged between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2006. Patients were excluded if they were admitted for <7 days, only for assessment or were a readmission. RESULTS: There were 3610 patients included (NT-SCI, n=2241, 62.1%; T-SCI, n=1361, 37.7%). There were numerous significant differences between NT-SCI and T-SCI patients. NT-SCI patients were generally older (median age NT-SCI 67 years vs T-SCI 46 years, P=0.000), less likely to be male (male NT-SCI 52.5% vs T-SCI 71.6%, P=0.000) and had a shorter length of stay (median NT-SCI 21 days vs T-SCI 44 days, P=0.000). NT-SCI patients were also less disabled than T-SCI patients, having higher Functional Independence Measure motor subscale score on admission (median NT-SCI 53 vs T-SCI 38, P=0.000) and discharge (median NT-SCI 76 vs T-SCI 74, P=0.000). CONCLUSION: Previous demographic studies of NT-SCI and T-SCI patients are similar to our population-based results. More population-based research in SCI is required.
STUDY DESIGN: A limitation of many studies of non-traumatic spinal cord injury (NT-SCI) and traumatic spinal cord injury (T-SCI) is potential lack of generalizability because of selection bias. An open cohort study using a national rehabilitation database was planned to address this. OBJECTIVE: To compare the demographic characteristics and outcomes between NT-SCI and T-SCI patients. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospitals in Australia. METHODS: The Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre maintains a national database of information on in-patients admitted to almost all (130/145 as at 2006) public and private rehabilitation hospitals in Australia. It collects a range of demographic and clinical outcomes. Patients were included if they were discharged between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2006. Patients were excluded if they were admitted for <7 days, only for assessment or were a readmission. RESULTS: There were 3610 patients included (NT-SCI, n=2241, 62.1%; T-SCI, n=1361, 37.7%). There were numerous significant differences between NT-SCI and T-SCI patients. NT-SCI patients were generally older (median age NT-SCI 67 years vs T-SCI 46 years, P=0.000), less likely to be male (male NT-SCI 52.5% vs T-SCI 71.6%, P=0.000) and had a shorter length of stay (median NT-SCI 21 days vs T-SCI 44 days, P=0.000). NT-SCI patients were also less disabled than T-SCI patients, having higher Functional Independence Measure motor subscale score on admission (median NT-SCI 53 vs T-SCI 38, P=0.000) and discharge (median NT-SCI 76 vs T-SCI 74, P=0.000). CONCLUSION: Previous demographic studies of NT-SCI and T-SCI patients are similar to our population-based results. More population-based research in SCI is required.
Authors: Sharon Gabison; Sunita Mathur; Ethne L Nussbaum; Milos R Popovic; Mary C Verrier Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Danielle Zacaron Santos; Isabel Cristina Gonçalves Leite; Maximiliano Ribeiro Guerra Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: A Halvorsen; A L Pettersen; S M Nilsen; K Krizak Halle; E Elmenhorst Schaanning; T Rekand Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Andresa R Marinho; Heather M Flett; Catharine Craven; C Andrea Ottensmeyer; Daria Parsons; Molly C Verrier Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 1.985