STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Comparison of the classification performance between the worksheet revisions of 2011 and 2013 of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI). SETTINGS: Ongoing ISNCSCI instructional courses of the European Multicenter Study on Human Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI). For quality control all participants were requested to classify five ISNCSCI cases directly before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the workshop. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-five clinicians working in 22 SCI centers attended the instructional course between November 2011 and March 2015. Seventy-two clinicians completed the post-test with the 2011 revision of the worksheet and 53 with the 2013 revision. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. OUTCOME MEASURES: The clinicians' classification performance assessed by the percentage of correctly determined motor levels (ML) and sensory levels, neurological levels of injury (NLI), ASIA Impairment Scales and zones of partial preservations. RESULTS: While no group differences were found in the pre-tests, the overall performance (rev2011: 92.2% ± 6.7%, rev2013: 94.3% ± 7.7%; P = 0.010), the percentage of correct MLs (83.2% ± 14.5% vs. 88.1% ± 15.3%; P = 0.046) and NLIs (86.1% ± 16.7% vs. 90.9% ± 18.6%; P = 0.043) improved significantly in the post-tests. Detailed ML analysis revealed the largest benefit of the 2013 revision (50.0% vs. 67.0%) in a case with a high cervical injury (NLI C2). CONCLUSION: The results from the EMSCI ISNCSCI post-tests show a significantly better classification performance using the revised 2013 worksheet presumably due to the body-side based grouping of myotomes and dermatomes and their correct horizontal alignment. Even with these proven advantages of the new layout, the correct determination of MLs in the segments C2-C4 remains difficult.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Comparison of the classification performance between the worksheet revisions of 2011 and 2013 of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI). SETTINGS: Ongoing ISNCSCI instructional courses of the European Multicenter Study on HumanSpinal Cord Injury (EMSCI). For quality control all participants were requested to classify five ISNCSCI cases directly before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the workshop. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-five clinicians working in 22 SCI centers attended the instructional course between November 2011 and March 2015. Seventy-two clinicians completed the post-test with the 2011 revision of the worksheet and 53 with the 2013 revision. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. OUTCOME MEASURES: The clinicians' classification performance assessed by the percentage of correctly determined motor levels (ML) and sensory levels, neurological levels of injury (NLI), ASIA Impairment Scales and zones of partial preservations. RESULTS: While no group differences were found in the pre-tests, the overall performance (rev2011: 92.2% ± 6.7%, rev2013: 94.3% ± 7.7%; P = 0.010), the percentage of correct MLs (83.2% ± 14.5% vs. 88.1% ± 15.3%; P = 0.046) and NLIs (86.1% ± 16.7% vs. 90.9% ± 18.6%; P = 0.043) improved significantly in the post-tests. Detailed ML analysis revealed the largest benefit of the 2013 revision (50.0% vs. 67.0%) in a case with a high cervical injury (NLI C2). CONCLUSION: The results from the EMSCI ISNCSCI post-tests show a significantly better classification performance using the revised 2013 worksheet presumably due to the body-side based grouping of myotomes and dermatomes and their correct horizontal alignment. Even with these proven advantages of the new layout, the correct determination of MLs in the segments C2-C4 remains difficult.
Entities:
Keywords:
Classification performance; ISNCSCI; International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury; Motor levels; Worksheet
Authors: Steven C Kirshblum; Stephen P Burns; Fin Biering-Sorensen; William Donovan; Daniel E Graves; Amitabh Jha; Mark Johansen; Linda Jones; Andrei Krassioukov; M J Mulcahey; Mary Schmidt-Read; William Waring Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: J D Steeves; D Lammertse; A Curt; J W Fawcett; M H Tuszynski; J F Ditunno; P H Ellaway; M G Fehlings; J D Guest; N Kleitman; P F Bartlett; A R Blight; V Dietz; B H Dobkin; R Grossman; D Short; M Nakamura; W P Coleman; M Gaviria; A Privat Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Steven C Kirshblum; William Waring; Fin Biering-Sorensen; Stephen P Burns; Mark Johansen; Mary Schmidt-Read; William Donovan; Daniel Graves; Amit Jha; Linda Jones; M J Mulcahey; Andrei Krassioukov Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: William P Waring; Fin Biering-Sorensen; Stephen Burns; William Donovan; Daniel Graves; Amitabh Jha; Linda Jones; Steven Kirshblum; Ralph Marino; M J Mulcahey; Ronald Reeves; William M Scelza; Mary Schmidt-Read; Adam Stein Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2010 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: S C Kirshblum; F Biering-Sorensen; R Betz; S Burns; W Donovan; D E Graves; M Johansen; L Jones; M J Mulcahey; G M Rodriguez; M Schmidt-Read; J D Steeves; K Tansey; W Waring Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Ross S Chafetz; Lawrence C Vogel; Randal R Betz; John P Gaughan; Mary Jane Mulcahey Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Rüdiger Rupp; Fin Biering-Sørensen; Stephen P Burns; Daniel E Graves; James Guest; Linda Jones; Mary Schmidt Read; Gianna M Rodriguez; Christian Schuld; Keith E Tansey-Md; Kristen Walden; Steven Kirshblum Journal: Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil Date: 2021
Authors: Marie Hidle Gedde; Hanne Sether Lilleberg; Jörg Aßmus; Nils Erik Gilhus; Tiina Rekand Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 1.985