STUDY DESIGN: In this study the motor scores of 62 consecutive acute spinal cord-injured patients were retrospectively reviewed. OBJECTIVE: The reliability of the American Spinal Injury Association and National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor scores, compared with the conventional motor scores, was retrospectively assessed. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The reliability of the American Spinal Injury Association and National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study scores has not as yet been confirmed. METHODS: Sixty-two consecutive adult patients admitted within 7 days of acute spinal cord injury between April, 1983, and September, 1992, were evaluated. The motor deficit percentage and the motor recovery percentage of each of the American Spinal Injury Association and the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor scores were compared with those of the conventional motor score. From the initial and final motor score, the motor deficit percentage and motor recovery percentage were calculated. There were 38 patients with cervical and thoracic lesions, 12 patients with dorso-lumbar lesions, and 12 patients with lower lumbar lesions. The average follow-up period was 41 months. RESULTS: Both the American Spinal Injury Association motor score and the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor score were representative of the conventional motor score for the evaluation of the motor deficit percentage and the motor recovery percentage in all levels (P < 0.0001). The differences in all correlation coefficients between the American Spinal Injury Association motor score and the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor score were not statistically significant in all levels and in every group. CONCLUSIONS: The American Spinal Injury Association and National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor scores can both be used for the neurological quantification of motor deficit and motor recovery.
STUDY DESIGN: In this study the motor scores of 62 consecutive acute spinal cord-injured patients were retrospectively reviewed. OBJECTIVE: The reliability of the American Spinal Injury Association and National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor scores, compared with the conventional motor scores, was retrospectively assessed. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The reliability of the American Spinal Injury Association and National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study scores has not as yet been confirmed. METHODS: Sixty-two consecutive adult patients admitted within 7 days of acute spinal cord injury between April, 1983, and September, 1992, were evaluated. The motor deficit percentage and the motor recovery percentage of each of the American Spinal Injury Association and the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor scores were compared with those of the conventional motor score. From the initial and final motor score, the motor deficit percentage and motor recovery percentage were calculated. There were 38 patients with cervical and thoracic lesions, 12 patients with dorso-lumbar lesions, and 12 patients with lower lumbar lesions. The average follow-up period was 41 months. RESULTS: Both the American Spinal Injury Association motor score and the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor score were representative of the conventional motor score for the evaluation of the motor deficit percentage and the motor recovery percentage in all levels (P < 0.0001). The differences in all correlation coefficients between the American Spinal Injury Association motor score and the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor score were not statistically significant in all levels and in every group. CONCLUSIONS: The American Spinal Injury Association and National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study motor scores can both be used for the neurological quantification of motor deficit and motor recovery.
Authors: T George Hornby; Catherine R Kinnaird; Carey L Holleran; Miriam R Rafferty; Kelly S Rodriguez; Julie B Cain Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2012-06-14
Authors: A Moreau-Gaudry; O Chenu; M V Dang; J-L Bosson; M Hommel; J Demongeot; F Cannard; B Diot; A Prince; C Hughes; N Vuillerme; Y Payan Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Richard Ted Abresch; Dawn A McDonald; Lana M Widman; Katrina McGinnis; Kathryn J Hickey Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Charlesnika T Evans; Thea J Rogers; Barry Goldstein; Frances M Weaver; Sherri L LaVela Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 1.985