The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Sygen® Multicenter Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, sequential, multicenter clinical trial of two doses of Sygen versus placebo. OBJECTIVES: To determine efficacy and safety of Sygen in acute spinal cord injury. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An earlier, single-center trial in 28 patients showed an improvement (50.0% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.034) in marked recovery with Sygen. METHODS: Standard clinical trial techniques. RESULTS: The prospectively planned analysis at the prespecified endpoint time for all patients was negative. There was a significant effect in all patients in the primary outcome variable (the percentage of marked recovery) at week 8, the end of the dosing period. There was a significant effect in all patients in the time at which marked recovery is first achieved. Restricted to severity Group B, which has small sample size, the primary efficacy analysis showed a trend but did not reach significance. There is a large, consistent and, at some time points, significant effect in the primary outcome variable in the nonoperated patients through week 26. The American Spinal Injury Association motor, light touch, and pinprick scores showed a consistent trend in favor of Sygen, as also did bowel function, bladder function, sacral sensation, and anal contraction. The less severely injured patients appeared to have a greater beneficial drug effect. Evidence against an effect of Sygen was minimal and scattered. CONCLUSIONS: Although not proven in the primary efficacy analysis of this trial, Sygen appears to be beneficial in patients with severe 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Ahuja, C. S., Wilson, J. R., Nori, S., Kotter, M. R. N., Druschel, C., Curt, A., & Fehlings, M. G. (2017) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2017.18 · Cited by 2,441
Schnaar, R. L., Gerardy-Schahn, R., & Hildebrandt, H. (2014) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00033.2013 · Cited by 745
Steeves, J. D., Lammertse, D., Curt, A., Fawcett, J. W., Tuszynski, M. H., Ditunno, J. F., Ellaway, P. H., Fehlings, M. G., Guest, J. D., Kleitman, N., et al. (2007) · Spinal Cord · doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3102008 · Cited by 470
Self-citationDonati, A. R. C., Shokur, S., Morya, E., Campos, D. S. F., Moioli, R. C., Gitti, C. M., Augusto, P. B., Tripodi, S., Pires, C. G., Pereira, G. A., et al. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep30383 · Cited by 428
Gangliosides in the Brain: Physiology, Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Applications
Sipione, S., Monyror, J., Galleguillos, D., Steinberg, N., & Kadam, V. (2020) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.572965 · Cited by 325
Metadata
- Authors
- Geisler, F. H., Coleman, W. P., Grieco, G., & Poonian, D.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- Supplement
- Pages
- S87-S98
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2316255286
- Cited by
- 475
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The Sygen® Multicenter Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-200112151-00015
- The paper
- Geisler, F. H., Coleman, W. P., Grieco, G., & Poonian, D. (2001). The Sygen® Multicenter Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200112151-00015
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.