Jordan D Hoskin1,2, Masae Miyatani1, B Catharine Craven1,2,3. 1. a Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-UHN , Brain and Spinal Cord Rehabilitation Program , Toronto , Ontario , Canada. 2. b Department of Kinesiology , University of Waterloo , Waterloo , Ontario , Canada. 3. c Department of Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto , Ontario , Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) may be used increasingly as a cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening tool in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) as other routine invasive diagnostic tests are often unfeasible. However, variation in cIMT acquisition and analysis methods is an issue in the current published literature. The growth of the field is dependent on cIMT quality acquisition and analysis to ensure accurate reporting of CVD risk. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of the reported methodology used to collect cIMT values in SCI. METHODS: Data from 12 studies, which measured cIMT in individuals with SCI, were identified from the Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases. The quality of the reported methodologies was scored based on adherence to cIMT methodological guidelines abstracted from two consensus papers. RESULTS: Five studies were scored as 'moderate quality' in methodological reporting, having specified 9 to 11 of 15 quality reporting criterion. The remaining seven studies were scored as 'low quality', having reported less than 9 of 15 quality reporting criterion. No study had methodological reporting that was scored as 'high quality'. The overall reporting of quality methodology was poor in the published SCI literature. CONCLUSIONS: A greater adherence to current methodological guidelines is needed to advance the field of cIMT in SCI. Further research is necessary to refine cIMT acquisition and analysis guidelines to aid authors designing research and journals in screening manuscripts for publication.
OBJECTIVES: Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) may be used increasingly as a cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening tool in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) as other routine invasive diagnostic tests are often unfeasible. However, variation in cIMT acquisition and analysis methods is an issue in the current published literature. The growth of the field is dependent on cIMT quality acquisition and analysis to ensure accurate reporting of CVD risk. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of the reported methodology used to collect cIMT values in SCI. METHODS: Data from 12 studies, which measured cIMT in individuals with SCI, were identified from the Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases. The quality of the reported methodologies was scored based on adherence to cIMT methodological guidelines abstracted from two consensus papers. RESULTS: Five studies were scored as 'moderate quality' in methodological reporting, having specified 9 to 11 of 15 quality reporting criterion. The remaining seven studies were scored as 'low quality', having reported less than 9 of 15 quality reporting criterion. No study had methodological reporting that was scored as 'high quality'. The overall reporting of quality methodology was poor in the published SCI literature. CONCLUSIONS: A greater adherence to current methodological guidelines is needed to advance the field of cIMT in SCI. Further research is necessary to refine cIMT acquisition and analysis guidelines to aid authors designing research and journals in screening manuscripts for publication.
Authors: Stephane Laurent; John Cockcroft; Luc Van Bortel; Pierre Boutouyrie; Cristina Giannattasio; Daniel Hayoz; Bruno Pannier; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Ian Wilkinson; Harry Struijker-Boudier Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: J R Matos-Souza; K R Pithon; T M Ozahata; R T Oliveira; F H Téo; M H Blotta; A Cliquet; W Nadruz Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: S H Orakzai; R H Orakzai; N Ahmadi; N Agrawal; W A Bauman; F Yee; R H Adkins; R L Waters; M J Budoff Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2007-03-06 Impact factor: 2.772