Advances in Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation to Restore Function after Spinal Cord Injury: History and Systematic Review.

Epidural spinal cord stimulation (eSCS) has been recently recognized as a potential therapy for chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). eSCS has been shown to uncover residual pathways within the damaged spinal cord. The purpose of this review is to summarize the key findings to date regarding the use of eSCS in SCI. Searches were carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science database and reference lists of the included articles. A combination of medical subject heading terms and keywords was used to find studies investigating the use of eSCS in SCI patients to facilitate volitional movement and to restore autonomic function. The risk of bias was assessed using Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool for nonrandomized studies. We were able to include 40 articles that met our eligibility criteria. The studies included a total of 184 patient experiences with incomplete or complete SCI. The majority of the studies used the Medtronic 16 paddle lead. Around half of the studies reported lead placement between T11- L1. We included studies that assessed motor (n = 28), autonomic (n = 13), and other outcomes (n = 10). The majority of the studies reported improvement in outcomes assessed. The wide range of included outcomes demonstrates the effectiveness of eSCS in treating a diverse SCI population. However, the current studies cannot definitively conclude which patients benefit the most from this intervention. Further study in this area is needed to allow improvement of the eSCS technology and allow it to be more widely available for chronic SCI patients.

Prevalence and Prevention of Reproducibility Deficiencies in Life Sciences Research: Large-Scale Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND Studies have found that many published life sciences research results are irreproducible. Our goal was to provide comprehensive risk estimates of familiar reproducibility deficiencies to support quality improvement in research. MATERIAL AND METHODS Reports included were peer-reviewed, published between 1980 and 2016, and presented frequency data of basic biomedical research deficiencies. Manual and electronic literature searches were performed in seven bibliographic databases. For deficiency concepts with at least four frequency studies and with a sample size of at least 15 units in each, a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS Overall, 68 publications met our inclusion criteria. The study identified several major groups of research quality defects: study design, cell lines, statistical analysis, and reporting. In the study design group of 3 deficiencies, missing power calculation was the most frequent (82.3% [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 69.9-94.6]). Among the 6 cell line deficiencies, mixed contamination was the most frequent (22.4% [95% CI: 10.4-34.3]). Among the 3 statistical analysis deficiencies, the use of chi-square test when expected cells frequency was <5 was the most prevalent (15.7% [95% CI: -3.2-34.7]). In the reporting group of 12 deficiencies, failure to state the number of tails was the most frequent (65% [95% CI: 39.3-90.8]). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study could serve as a general reference when consistently measurable sources of deficiencies need to be identified in research quality improvement.