STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To examine the differences in the use of the @entity1667 protocol for traumatic @entity1566 before and after the publication of new guidelines in Switzerland. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of the @entity1667 protocol for traumatic @entity1566 changed after the publication of new guidelines. The rate of physicians prescribing high-dose @entity1667 for @entity1 with acute @entity1566 was studied. Two intervals, each comprising 24 months before and after the publication of the consensus article in Switzerland, were compared. As a secondary parameter, the neurological development during the rehabilitation period was compared. METHODS: The charts of all adult @entity1 who were referred for treatment of a spine or @entity1566 during the periods from April 2001 to March 2003 and from April 2008 to March 2010 were retrospectively reviewed for demographic and medical details, the application of @entity1667 within the first 48 hours after the injury, the diagnoses at the time of their referral, and the diagnosis at the time of hospital discharge. Classification of traumatic @entity1566 was made according to the guidelines of the American @entity3510 Association. Neurological improvement concerning the level of injury was defined as a change of this segment to a more caudal one or a complete normalization of sensory and motor function. RESULTS: During the 2 study periods, 110 @entity1 (2001-2003) and 116 @entity1 (2008-2010) were included. Between 2001 and 2003, 96% of @entity1 with a @entity51 after @entity1566 were treated with high-dose @entity1667 , whereas this rate dropped to 23% during the second time interval. In both treatment periods, neurological improvement during the rehabilitation period (mean: 6 mo) did not differ significantly. Pooled data of all @entity1 with a @entity51 in both study periods (n = 159) showed improved neurological levels in 32% of @entity1 treated with @entity1667 and 28% of @entity1 without this therapy, without a statistical difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: In Switzerland, the acceptance of the guidelines for treating traumatic @entity1566 with high-dose @entity1667 has been extremely high in the past. The use of high-dose @entity1667 has decreased to a much lower level in Switzerland after the publication of new guidelines, which is comparable to various other countries. Despite these changes, no differences in the neurological outcome were detected between the observed @entity1 populations.

Changes in the use of the XXXX protocol for traumatic @entity1566 in Switzerland.

@entity1667 :: ('MESH:D008775', 'Chemical') :: ['methylprednisolone'] @entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity3510 :: ('MESH:D013124', 'Disease') :: ['Spinal Injury'] @entity51 :: ('MESH:D009461', 'Disease') :: ['neurological deficit'] @entity1566 :: ('MESH:D013119', 'Disease') :: ['spinal cord injury']
@entity1667 :: (MESH:D008775,Chemical) :: ['methylprednisolone']
