Dear Spinal Cord reader,

Rehabilitation is a major step in health management after spinal cord lesion. An important aspect, often overlooked, is the experience of patients during this period. Whalley Hammell's review article initiates the April issue by presenting the results of a metasynthesis of qualitative findings related to the experience of rehabilitation. You will find sound advice on practical ways to optimize this important recovery period.

Outcome after spinal cord lesion, its rehabilitation and treatment are interesting areas of research. To determine how to measure outcome is of prime importance due to its application in clinical observation, qualitative evaluation and trials.

Outcome measurement can be carried out in various ways: measuring independence; psychometric tests; functional assessments; quality of life analyses; and also electrophysiological and histological experiments.

The April issue of Spinal Cord includes several of these methods. First, Catz presents the findings of an international multicenter study on the Rasch psychometric validation version III of spinal cord independence.

This is followed by manuscripts on outcome in traumatic central cord syndrome, the electrophysiological assessment of sexual dysfunction, and skeletal muscle atrophy and increased intramuscular fat after incomplete spinal cord lesions, which all present important findings.

There are many causes of spinal cord lesions. Four interesting case reports describing special causes are included in this issue: acute myelopathy due to ossification of the proximal thoracic ligamenta flava; myeloneuropathy caused by unusual substance abuse; spinal cord compression by β2-microglobulin amyloidosis in a long-term haemodialysis patient; and finally a case of intraroot cauda equine cavernous angioma.

I have spoken in the past about the limitations placed on journals such as Spinal Cord due to rising submissions not being accompanied by a proportionate increase in pagination. I am therefore now pleased to report that a decision has been made to increase Spinal Cord's annual page budget soon in order to permit more interesting submissions to be published in print sooner. In the meantime, I would urge you to continue visiting the Spinal Cord web site to view articles published online in advance of their print publication date: http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html.

Do not hesitate to contact the editorial office if you wish to discuss a submission, comment on a manuscript or ask us any questions. By stimulating conversation and debate, we hope that Spinal Cord can fulfill its aim of being the international voice of the spinal cord.