Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 603

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Recovery of Motor Function after Spinal-Cord Injury — A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial with GM-1 Ganglioside

Open access
Geisler, Fred H., Dorsey, Frank C., Coleman, William P.·1991·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spinal-cord injury is devastating; until recently, there was no medical treatment to improve recovery of the initial neurologic deficit. Studies in animals have shown that monosialotetrahexosylganglioside (GM-1) ganglioside enhances the functional recovery of damaged neurons. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of GM-1 ganglioside was conducted in patients with spinal-cord injuries. Of 37 patients entered into the study, 34 (23 with cervical injuries and 11 with thoracic injuries) completed the test-drug protocol (100 mg of GM-1 sodium salt or placebo intravenously per day for 18 to 32 doses, with the first dose taken within 72 hours of the injury) and a one-year follow-up period. Neurologic recovery was assessed with the Frankel scale (comprising five categories) and the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score (a scale of scores from 0 to 100, derived from strength tests of 20 specific muscles, each scored from 0 to 5). RESULTS: There was a significant difference between groups in the distribution of improvement of Frankel grades from base line to the one-year follow-up (improvement of 0, 1, 2, and 3 grades in 13, 4, 1, and 0 patients, respectively, in the placebo group and 8, 1, 6, and 1 patients, respectively, in the GM-1 group; P = 0.034 by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test). The GM-1-treated patients also had a significantly greater mean improvement in ASIA motor score from base line to the one-year follow-up than the placebo-treated patients (36.9 vs. 21.6 points; P = 0.047 by analysis of covariance with the base-line ASIA motor score as the covariate). An analysis of individual muscle recoveries revealed that the increased recovery in the GM-1 group was attributable to initially paralyzed muscles that regained useful motor strength rather than to strengthening of paretic muscles. CONCLUSIONS: This small study provides evidence that GM-1 enhances the recovery of neurologic function after one year. A larger study must be conducted, however, before GM-1 is considered efficacious and safe in treating spinal-cord injury.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199106273242601

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 603

Metadata

Authors
Geisler, F. H., Dorsey, F. C., & Coleman, W. P.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1991-06-27
Volume
324
Issue
26
Pages
1829-1838
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2045414227
Cited by
603
References
0
FWCI
34.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recovery of Motor Function after Spinal-Cord Injury — A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial with GM-1 Ganglioside. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199106273242601
The paper
Geisler, F. H., Dorsey, F. C., & Coleman, W. P. (1991). Recovery of Motor Function after Spinal-Cord Injury — A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial with GM-1 Ganglioside. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199106273242601

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.