Methodology of Systematic Reviews and Recommendations

Although research in the field of spinal cord injury (SCI) is a relatively new endeavor, a remarkable number of papers focused on this subspecialty have been published in a broad variety of journals over the last two decades. A multidisciplinary group of experts, including clinical epidemiologists, neurosurgical and orthopedic spine surgeons, basic scientists, rehabilitation specialists, intensivists, and allied health professionals (nursing and physical therapy) was assembled through the Spinal Cord Injury Solutions Network to summarize the existing literature focusing on 12 key topics related to acute traumatic SCI, which have not been recently reviewed. The objective was to develop evidence-based recommendations to help translate current science into clinical practice and to identify new directions for research. For each topic one to three specific questions were formulated by consensus through the expert panel. A systematic review of the literature was performed to determine the current evidence for the specific questions. A primary literature search was performed using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. A secondary search strategy incorporated additional articles referenced in significant publications (i.e., meta-analysis, systematic and nonsystematic review articles). Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts yielded by this comprehensive search and subsequently selected articles based on the predetermined inclusion and inclusion criteria. Data were extracted for population into evidentiary tables. Selected articles were rated for level of evidence and methodological quality, information that was also included in evidentiary tables. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer or consensus-based discussion. Based on the evidence compiled, answers to the targeted questions were formulated and recommendations generated by consensus-based discussion and anonymized voting using Delphi methodology. A level of consensus of 80% or higher was considered to represent strong agreement.