Marcalee Alexander1,2,3, Jill Wecht4,5, Andrei Krassioukov6,7. 1. 1Birmingham VA Medical Center, Birmingham, AL 35233 USA. 2. 2University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA. 3. 3Harvard Medical School Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Boston, MA 02115 USA. 4. 4National Center for the Medical Consequences of SCI: James J Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10468 USA. 5. 5Department of Medicine and Rehabilitation Medicine, The Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029 USA. 6. 6International Collaboration On Repair Discoveries, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Canada. 7. 7University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Canada.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Online questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: To identify the awareness, and current use, of the International Standards for the Assessment of Autonomic Function after SCI (ISAFSCI) and suggest necessary revisions. SETTING: An international collaboration of committee members. METHODS: A survey was drafted and consensus achieved among members of the International Standards Committee of the ASIA. The questionnaire was posted on SurveyMonkey for 2 months. A survey link was posted on the ASIA and ISCoS websites, and committee members circulated the survey to colleagues with the goal of obtaining a wide-spread international response. RESULTS: A total of 173 providers responded. About half (n = 84) of the respondents used the standards in some form. Forty-four percent (n = 72) felt they knew the difference between the standards and the data sets. Among 135 responses on the usefulness of the ISAFSCI, the bladder, bowel, and sexual function sections, and the heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and sudomotor sections for use in patients with tetraplegia were reported as most useful. Comments revealed that respondents would like more explanation regarding specific definitions of components of the standards, how/when to use the ISAFSCI, and how the ISAFSCI may assist in clinical care. CONCLUSION: The ISAFSCI is used by a subset of SCI clinicians. Some find the standards useful, while others are unaware of the utility of the ISAFSCI to prevent morbidity and assist in documentation of autonomic recovery post SCI. Further clarification regarding the definition of various disorders, and how and why to use the ISAFSCI in the SCI population, is needed.
STUDY DESIGN: Online questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: To identify the awareness, and current use, of the International Standards for the Assessment of Autonomic Function after SCI (ISAFSCI) and suggest necessary revisions. SETTING: An international collaboration of committee members. METHODS: A survey was drafted and consensus achieved among members of the International Standards Committee of the ASIA. The questionnaire was posted on SurveyMonkey for 2 months. A survey link was posted on the ASIA and ISCoS websites, and committee members circulated the survey to colleagues with the goal of obtaining a wide-spread international response. RESULTS: A total of 173 providers responded. About half (n = 84) of the respondents used the standards in some form. Forty-four percent (n = 72) felt they knew the difference between the standards and the data sets. Among 135 responses on the usefulness of the ISAFSCI, the bladder, bowel, and sexual function sections, and the heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and sudomotor sections for use in patients with tetraplegia were reported as most useful. Comments revealed that respondents would like more explanation regarding specific definitions of components of the standards, how/when to use the ISAFSCI, and how the ISAFSCI may assist in clinical care. CONCLUSION: The ISAFSCI is used by a subset of SCI clinicians. Some find the standards useful, while others are unaware of the utility of the ISAFSCI to prevent morbidity and assist in documentation of autonomic recovery post SCI. Further clarification regarding the definition of various disorders, and how and why to use the ISAFSCI in the SCI population, is needed.
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: Ralph J Marino; Mary Schmidt-Read; Steven C Kirshblum; Trevor A Dyson-Hudson; Keith Tansey; Leslie R Morse; Daniel E Graves Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Ross A Davidson; Marie Carlson; Nader Fallah; Vanessa K Noonan; Stacy L Elliott; Jay Joseph; Karen M Smith; Andrei V Krassioukov Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: M S Alexander; F Biering-Sorensen; D Bodner; N L Brackett; D Cardenas; S Charlifue; G Creasey; V Dietz; J Ditunno; W Donovan; S L Elliott; I Estores; D E Graves; B Green; A Gousse; A B Jackson; M Kennelly; A-K Karlsson; A Krassioukov; K Krogh; T Linsenmeyer; R Marino; C J Mathias; I Perkash; A W Sheel; G Schilero; G Shilero; B Schurch; J Sonksen; S Stiens; J Wecht; L A Wuermser; J-J Wyndaele Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2008-10-28 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Jill M Wecht; Andrei V Krassioukov; Maralee Alexander; John P Handrakis; Stephen L McKenna; Michael Kennelly; Michele Trbovich; Fin Biering-Sorensen; Stephen Burns; Stacy L Elliott; Daniel Graves; James Hamer; Klaus Krogh; Todd A Linsenmeyer; Nan Liu; Ellen Merete Hagen; Aaron A Phillips; Jean-Gabriel Previnaire; Gianna M Rodriguez; Chloe Slocum; James R Wilson Journal: Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil Date: 2021