Table 3

GRADE analysis including quality assessment, summary of findings and certainty in estimates of prevalence of chronic pain in spinal cord injury

ISCIP category no of studiesQuality assessmentSummary of findingsCertainty in prevalence estimates
LimitationsInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionPublication biasPooled prevalence (95% CI)No of patients
Total (all categories)
 37Limitations were minimal in most studies, related primarily to population sample selection and non-response biasHigh degree of statistical heterogeneity (I2=97%)No serious indirectnessNo serious imprecisionUndetected68% (63% to 73%)11 351++Low
Neuropathic
 13Limitations were minimal in most studies, related primarily to population sample selection and non-response biasHigh degree of statistical heterogeneity (I2=97%)No serious indirectnessNo serious imprecisionUndetected58% (49% to 68%)3512++Low
Nociceptive
Visceral
 8Limitations were minimalHigh degree of statistical heterogeneity (I2=95%)No serious indirectnessNo serious imprecisionUndetected56% (41% to 70%)1430++Low
Musculoskeletal
 11Limitations were minimal in most studies, primarily related to external validityHigh degree of statistical heterogeneity (I2=98%)No serious indirectnessNo serious imprecisionUndetected20% (11% to 29%)2427++Low
Other
 2Limitations were minimalHigh degree of statistical heterogeneity (I2=98%)No serious indirectnessSerious concern about imprecision due to small sample sizeUndetected45% (13% to 78%)402+Very low
  • GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation; ISCIP, International Spinal Cord Injury Pain; No, number.