Epidemiology of Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury in Developing Countries from 2009 to 2020: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) is a catastrophic event with a considerable health and economic burden on individuals and countries. This study was performed to update an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological properties of TSCI in developing countries published in 2013. METHODS: Various search methods including online searching in database of EMBASE and PubMed, and hand searching were performed (2012 to May 2020). The keywords "Spinal cord injury," "epidemiology," "incidence," and "prevalence" were used. Based on the definition of developing countries by the International Monetary Fund, studies related to developing countries were included. Data selection was according to PRISMA guidelines. The quality of included studies was evaluated by Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Results of meta-analysis were presented as pooled frequency, and forest, funnel, and drapery plots. RESULTS: We identified 47 studies from 23 developing countries. The pooled incidence of TSCI in developing countries was 22.55/million/year (95% CI: 13.52; 37.62/million/year). Males comprised 80.09% (95% CI: 78.29%; 81.83%) of TSCIs, and under 30 years patients were the most affected age group. Two leading etiologies of TSCIs were motor vehicle crashes (43.18% [95% CI: 37.80%; 48.63%]) and falls (34.24% [95% CI: 29.08%; 39.59%], respectively). The difference among the frequency of complete injury (49.47% [95% CI: 43.11%; 55.84%]) and incomplete injury (50.53% [95% CI: 44.16%; 56.89%]) was insignificant. The difference among frequency of tetraplegia (46.25% [95% CI: 37.78%; 54.83%]) and paraplegia (53.75% [95% CI: 45.17%; 62.22%]) was not statistically significant. The most prevalent level of TSCI was cervical injury (43.42% [95% CI: 37.38%; 49.55%]). CONCLUSION: In developing countries, TSCIs are more common in young adults and males. Motor vehicle crashes and falls are the main etiologies. Understanding epidemiological characteristics of TSCIs could lead to implant-appropriate cost-effective preventive strategies to decrease TSCI incidence and burden.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".