Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/110242
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Journal article |
Title: | Achieving assessor accuracy on the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury |
Author: | Armstrong, A. Clark, J. Ho, D. Payne, C. Nolan, S. Goodes, L. Harvey, L. Marshall, R. Galea, M. Dunlop, S. |
Citation: | Spinal Cord, 2017; 55(11):994-1001 |
Publisher: | Nature Publishing Group |
Issue Date: | 2017 |
ISSN: | 1362-4393 1476-5624 |
Statement of Responsibility: | AJ Armstrong, JM Clark, DT Ho, CJ Payne, S Nolan, LM Goodes, LA Harvey, R Marshall, MP Galea, SA Dunlop, on behalf of the Clinical Trial Collaborators |
Abstract: | Study design: A retrospective audit of assessor accuracy using the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) in three multicentre randomised controlled trials (SCIPA: Spinal Cord Injury and Physical Activity) spanning 2010-2014 with standards revised in 2011. Objectives: To investigate assessor accuracy of neurological classification after spinal cord injury. Setting: Australia and New Zealand. Methods: ISNCSCI examinations were undertaken by trained clinicians prior to randomisation. Data were recorded manually and ISNCSCI worksheets circulated to panels, consensus reached and worksheets corrected. An audit team used a 2014 computerised ISNCSCI algorithm to check manual worksheets. A second audit team assessed whether the 2014 computerised algorithm accurately reflected pre- and post-2011 ISNCSCI standards. Results: Of the 208 ISNCSCI worksheets, 24 were excluded. Of the remaining 184 worksheets, 47 (25.5%) were consistent with the 2014 computerised algorithm and 137 (74.5%) contained one or more errors. Errors were in motor (30.1%) or sensory (12.4%) levels, zone of partial preservation (24.0%), motor/sensory scoring (21.5%), ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS, 8.3%) and complete/incomplete classification (0.8%). Other difficulties included classification when anal contraction/sensation was omitted, incorrect neurological levels and violation of the 'motor follows sensory rule in non-testable myotomes' (7.4%). Panel errors comprised corrections that were incorrect or missed or incorrect changes to correct worksheets. Conclusion: Given inaccuracies in the manual ISNCSCI worksheets in this long-term clinical trial setting, continued training and a computerised algorithm are essential to ensure accurate scoring, scaling and classification of the ISNCSCI and confidence in clinical trials. |
Keywords: | Humans Spinal Cord Injuries Neurologic Examination Retrospective Studies Algorithms Medical Audit Australia New Zealand |
Rights: | © 2017 International Spinal Cord Society All rights reserved |
DOI: | 10.1038/sc.2017.67 |
Grant ID: | http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1002347 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1028300 |
Published version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2017.67 |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 8 Medicine publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.