首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine >International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury: impact of the revised worksheet (revision 02/13) on classification performance
【2h】

International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury: impact of the revised worksheet (revision 02/13) on classification performance

机译:脊髓损伤的神经分类国际标准:修订后的工作表(修订02/13)对分类性能的影响

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>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.
机译:>研究设计:前瞻性队列研究。>目标:比较国际脊髓损伤神经分类标准(ISNCSCI)2011年和2013年的工作表修订之间的分类效果。>设置:欧洲多中心人类脊髓损伤研究(EMSCI)正在进行的ISNCSCI教学课程。为了进行质量控制,要求所有参与者在研讨会之前(测试前)和测试后(测试后)直接对5个ISNCSCI病例进行分类。>参与者:在22个SCI中心工作的125位临床医生参加了会议该培训课程于2011年11月至2015年3月进行。72名临床医生完成了2011年修订版的工作后测试,53名完成了2013年修订版的工作。>干预:不适用。>结果措施:通过正确确定的运动水平(ML)和感觉水平,神经损伤水平(NLI),ASIA损伤量表和部分保留区域的百分比来评估临床医生的分类表现。>结果:虽然在预测试中未发现组差异,但总体表现(rev2011:92.2%±6.7%; rev2013:94.3%±7.7%; P = 0.010),正确的ML百分比(83.2%±14.5%) vs. 88.1%±15.3%; P = 0.046)和NLI(86.1%±16.7%v s。90.9%±18.6%; P = 0.043)在后期测试中显着提高。详细的ML分析显示,在颈椎损伤严重(NLI C2)的情况下,2013年修订版的最大益处(50.0%比67.0%)。>结论:EMSCI ISNCSCI后测结果使用经修订的2013年工作表显示出明显更好的分类性能,大概是由于肌体和皮层的基于身体侧的分组及其正确的水平排列。即使有了新布局的这些已证明的优点,仍然很难正确确定C2-C4段中的ML。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号