SCI: Lipid Abnormalities (2007)

Study Design:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

Not noted by author

Inclusion Criteria:

Protocol for review was not described.  Carbohydrate metabolism and diabetes and lipid metabolism and cardiovascular disease was reviewed in relation to spinal cord injury.

Exclusion Criteria:

Not noted by author.

Description of Study Protocol:


Methods for study inclusion not specified.


Narrative review of the literature without any criteria defined by author except for carbohydrate metabolism and diabetes and lipid metabolism and cardiovascular disease in relation to spinal cord injury.

Blinding used (if applicable)

Not applicable

Intervention (if applicable)

 Not applicable

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis not performed.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Not applicable

Dependent Variables

Not applicable

Independent Variables

Not applicable

Control Variables

Not applicable

Description of Actual Data Sample:


Initial N:

 126 references cited.

Attrition (final N): 126

Age: Not applicable

Ethnicity: Not applicable

Other relevant demographics: Not applicable

Anthropometrics (e.g., were groups same or different on important measures)

Not applicable


Worldwide studies

Summary of Results:



When compared to the healthy population, people with SCI are more likely to have oral carbohydrate intolerance, insulin resistance, elevated low-density lipoproten cholesterol, and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, associated with increased prevalence of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. 

Other Findings


Author Conclusion:

Modifiable risk factor such as obesity, inactivity, dietary factors, and smoking need to be addressed in individuals with SCI because of incresed risk factors for diabetes mellitus and heart disase.  To reduce morbidity and mortality associated with these risk factors, periodic screening for carbohydrate and lipid abnormalities is recommended along with appropriate interventions.

Funding Source:
Government: Department of Veteran Affairs, NIDRR
University/Hospital: Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Foundation associated with industry:
Reviewer Comments:
  • "Traditional" review article with no description of search strategy, article selection, or critique of sources cited.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? Yes
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? Yes
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? Yes
Validity Questions
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? No
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? No
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? No
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? No
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? Yes
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? Yes
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? No
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? No
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? No
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes