Consensus-Based Recommendations for Designing, Delivering, Evaluating, and Reporting Exercise Intervention Research Involving People Living With a Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To establish recommendations for designing, delivering, evaluating, and reporting exercise intervention research to improve fitness-related outcomes in people living with spinal cord injury (PwSCI). DESIGN: International consensus process. SETTING: (1) An expert panel was established consisting of 9 members of the governing panel of the International Spinal Cord Society Physical Activity Special Interest Group and 9 additional scientists who authored or co-authored ≥1 exercise randomized controlled trial paper involving PwSCI. (2) We invited the panelists to draft an outline of the recommendations for 1 intervention component. (3) The panel reviewed the draft outlines and determined whether they fit the scope and objectives of the project, whether they were evidence-based, and whether they were sufficiently detailed. (4) We interviewed 7 PwSCI who had participated in ≥1 exercise trial to gather insights on their experiences within the trials, what they liked, and what they would change. (5) A first draft of the recommendations was approved by the panel and circulated to the general members of the International Spinal Cord Society Physical Activity Special Interest Group to gather their suggestions and opinions via an online survey. (6) The member feedback was used to revise the recommendations and panel members approved a final version. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): N/A. RESULTS: We generated 33 recommendations regarding participant recruitment, study sample size determination, outcome measurement, potential confounders, exercise intervention prescription and delivery, supporting adherence to the intervention, monitoring and reporting adherence and retention, fidelity of the delivery of the intervention, monitoring and reporting adverse events, study design, and registration of study protocol and preparation of a protocol paper. CONCLUSIONS: International experts have come to consensus on recommendations for conducting exercise intervention research involving PwSCI. Adopting these recommendations will increase the quality of the research and the overall certainty of the evidence regarding the effects of exercise on health outcomes in PwSCI.
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 | 0.558 | 0.731 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".