Ryan Solinsky1,2,3, Laura Specker-Sullivan4, Anna Wexler5. 1. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Spaulding Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Philosophy, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 5. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
Context/objective: To determine current barriers for clinical implementation of epidural stimulation for functional improvement after spinal cord injury and highlight applicable ethical constructs to approach future research. Design: Survey of spinal cord injury medicine physicians, January 2019. Setting: Spinal cord injury model systems hospital sites across the United States. Participants: Spinal cord injury medicine physicians. Interventions: NA. Outcome measures: Physician-identified current barriers to clinical implementation of epidural stimulation. Results: The response rate for the survey was 54.6% (n = 42), with the majority of physicians (61.9%) having been asked by patients with spinal cord injuries about epidural stimulation. Numerous current barriers to clinical implementation were identified, including need for additional efficacy studies (92.9%), lack of clear guidelines on stimulation parameters (83.3%), and inability to identify which patients will benefit (76.2%). Conclusions: With multiple barriers to clinical implementation currently identified, evaluating this research with an eye toward the ethical construct of equipoise is increasingly relevant. Addressing these barriers may require modifications in both physician expectations and how researchers approach this work.
Context/objective: To determine current barriers for clinical implementation of epidural stimulation for functional improvement after spinal cord injury and highlight applicable ethical constructs to approach future research. Design: Survey of spinal cord injury medicine physicians, January 2019. Setting: Spinal cord injury model systems hospital sites across the United States. Participants: Spinal cord injury medicine physicians. Interventions: NA. Outcome measures: Physician-identified current barriers to clinical implementation of epidural stimulation. Results: The response rate for the survey was 54.6% (n = 42), with the majority of physicians (61.9%) having been asked by patients with spinal cord injuries about epidural stimulation. Numerous current barriers to clinical implementation were identified, including need for additional efficacy studies (92.9%), lack of clear guidelines on stimulation parameters (83.3%), and inability to identify which patients will benefit (76.2%). Conclusions: With multiple barriers to clinical implementation currently identified, evaluating this research with an eye toward the ethical construct of equipoise is increasingly relevant. Addressing these barriers may require modifications in both physician expectations and how researchers approach this work.
Authors: Sander L Hitzig; Mark Tonack; Kent A Campbell; Colleen F McGillivray; Kathryn A Boschen; Kieva Richards; B Catharine Craven Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Susan Harkema; Yury Gerasimenko; Jonathan Hodes; Joel Burdick; Claudia Angeli; Yangsheng Chen; Christie Ferreira; Andrea Willhite; Enrico Rejc; Robert G Grossman; V Reggie Edgerton Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christopher R West; Aaron A Phillips; Jordan W Squair; Alexandra M Williams; Matthias Walter; Tania Lam; Andrei V Krassioukov Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Megan L Gill; Peter J Grahn; Jonathan S Calvert; Margaux B Linde; Igor A Lavrov; Jeffrey A Strommen; Lisa A Beck; Dimitry G Sayenko; Meegan G Van Straaten; Dina I Drubach; Daniel D Veith; Andrew R Thoreson; Cesar Lopez; Yury P Gerasimenko; V Reggie Edgerton; Kendall H Lee; Kristin D Zhao Journal: Nat Med Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Allan D Levi; Kim D Anderson; David O Okonkwo; Paul Park; Thomas N Bryce; Shekar N Kurpad; Bizhan Aarabi; Jane Hsieh; Katie Gant Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Michael G Fehlings; Kee D Kim; Bizhan Aarabi; Marco Rizzo; Lisa M Bond; Lisa McKerracher; Alexander R Vaccaro; David O Okonkwo Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: April N Herrity; Sevda C Aslan; Samineh Mesbah; Ricardo Siu; Karthik Kalvakuri; Beatrice Ugiliweneza; Ahmad Mohamed; Charles H Hubscher; Susan J Harkema Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.996