Brandon W Smith1, Sarada Sakamuri2, Kara E Flavin3, Michael Jensen4, David A Purger4, Lynda J-S Yang5, Robert J Spinner1, Thomas J Wilson6. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, R293, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, R293, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. wilsontj@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this survey-based study was to evaluate the current practice patterns of clinicians who assess patients with peripheral nerve pathologies and to assess variance in motor grading on the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale using example case vignettes. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to clinicians who regularly assess patients with peripheral nerve pathology. Survey sections included (1) demographic data, (2) vignettes where respondents were asked to assess on the MRC scale, and (3) assessment of practice patterns regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures. Inter-rater reliability statistics were calculated for the application of the MRC scale on example vignettes. RESULTS: There were 109 respondents. There was significant dispersion in motor grading seen on the example vignettes. For the raw responses grading the example vignettes on the MRC scale, Krippendorff's alpha was 0.788 (95% CI 0.604, 0.991); Gwet's AC2 was 0.808 (95% CI 0.683, 0.932); Fleiss' kappa was 0.416 (95% CI 0.413, 0.419). Most respondents reported not utilizing any patient-reported outcome measures across peripheral nerve pathologies. DISCUSSION: Our data show that there is significant disagreement among providers when applying the MRC scale. It is important for us to reassess our current tools for patient evaluation in order to improve upon both clinical evaluation and outcomes reporting. Consensus guidelines for outcomes reporting are needed, and domains outside of manual muscle testing should be included.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this survey-based study was to evaluate the current practice patterns of clinicians who assess patients with peripheral nerve pathologies and to assess variance in motor grading on the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale using example case vignettes. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to clinicians who regularly assess patients with peripheral nerve pathology. Survey sections included (1) demographic data, (2) vignettes where respondents were asked to assess on the MRC scale, and (3) assessment of practice patterns regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures. Inter-rater reliability statistics were calculated for the application of the MRC scale on example vignettes. RESULTS: There were 109 respondents. There was significant dispersion in motor grading seen on the example vignettes. For the raw responses grading the example vignettes on the MRC scale, Krippendorff's alpha was 0.788 (95% CI 0.604, 0.991); Gwet's AC2 was 0.808 (95% CI 0.683, 0.932); Fleiss' kappa was 0.416 (95% CI 0.413, 0.419). Most respondents reported not utilizing any patient-reported outcome measures across peripheral nerve pathologies. DISCUSSION: Our data show that there is significant disagreement among providers when applying the MRC scale. It is important for us to reassess our current tools for patient evaluation in order to improve upon both clinical evaluation and outcomes reporting. Consensus guidelines for outcomes reporting are needed, and domains outside of manual muscle testing should be included.
Entities:
Keywords:
Manual motor testing; Patient-reported outcome; Peripheral nerve; Survey
Authors: Brandon W Smith; Kate W-C Chang; Serena J Saake; Lynda J-S Yang; Kevin C Chung; Susan H Brown Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jae W Song; Jennifer F Waljee; Patricia B Burns; Kevin C Chung; R Glenn Gaston; Steven C Haase; Warren C Hammert; Jeffrey N Lawton; Greg A Merrell; Paul F Nassab; Lynda J S Yang Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Els Karla Vanhoutte; Catharina Gerritdina Faber; Sonja Ingrid van Nes; Bart Casper Jacobs; Pieter Antoon van Doorn; Rinske van Koningsveld; David Reid Cornblath; Anneke Jelly van der Kooi; Elisabeth Aviva Cats; Leonard Hendrik van den Berg; Nicolette Claudia Notermans; Willem Lodewijk van der Pol; Mieke Catharina Elisabeth Hermans; Nadine Anna Maria Elisabeth van der Beek; Kenneth Craig Gorson; Marijke Eurelings; Jeroen Engelsman; Hendrik Boot; Ronaldus Jacobus Meijer; Giuseppe Lauria; Alan Tennant; Ingemar Sergio José Merkies Journal: Brain Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 13.501