Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: So what is going on concerning sci research ?

  1. #21
    I wonder if this could help me. I'm C2-T2 spinal cord infarction, incomplete, walking. If I could get bladder and bowel sensation improved that would be huge for me. I'm 10 years out though. I sent it to my urologist to see what she thinks.

  2. #22

    Article questions

    Has anyone seeing the research paper on this yet?

    After reading the article numerous times there are a number of things that don't quite seem to add up.

    I have to assume that the clinical trial listed below is not related to this article.

    Here is the link to the article

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/880536

    Here is a link to the clinical trial. Or what I thought was the click clinical trial.

    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01329757

    There are a number of inconsistencies:

    1. The article talks specifically about complete injuries, however the clinical trial states that it is recruiting for incomplete injuries and complete injuries are excluded.

    2. The article states it was six months of treatment and the clinical trial is recruiting for 12 months.

    I have to assume that I am looking at the wrong clinical trial? Or perhaps they did a follow-up study to their original clinical trial, but it does not qualify as a clinical trial?

    There are numerous things stated in the article that don't make sense to me. If anyone clarify I would appreciate it.

    1. The other states that Those in the treatment group (n = 7) had peak growth hormone levels of 1.8 ng/mL prior to randomization while those in the placebo group (n = 5) had levels of 5.3 ng/mL. One patient was lost to follow-up.

    Six months of treatment with growth hormone has improved sensory function in patients with spinal-cord injury and concomitant growth-hormone deficiency, according to the first such trial of this approach.


    How can this be an accurate comparison if the levels of growth hormone were so difference in the two groups?

    2. The article states: She also pointed out that the glucagon test used in the study to determine growth-hormone deficiency "could have overestimated the rate of complete spinal injury." And data on possible traumatic brain injury (concomitant with the spinal injury) in these patients were "not provided," she said.

    Why would a glucagon test overestimate the rate of complete spinal cord injury? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me

    Six months of treatment with growth hormone has improved sensory function in patients with spinal-cord injury and concomitant growth-hormone deficiency, according to the first such trial of this approach.

    Does this mean that if you have normal Growth Hormone levels you would not benefit?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 03:33 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-26-2009, 01:24 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 01:08 AM
  4. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-07-2003, 07:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •