2015
DOI: 10.1310/sci2103-241
View full text |Buy / Rent full text
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Due to the low to moderate quality of the current literature, the sensory component of the ISNCSCI requires further revision and investigation if it is to be a useful tool in clinical trials.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
references
References 30 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Generally, intra-rater and inter-rater agreements among trained or experienced raters were acceptable; [17,[21][22][23] however, even for trained examiners, the agreements of sensory and/or motor examination were less reliable in patients with an incomplete SCI than in those with a complete SCI [19,22]. In addition, although several studies have reported that training improved accuracy of agreement [15,16,18,20,[24][25][26], efficacy was significantly lower in incomplete than in complete SCI [15,16,20,[24][25][26]. For example, Chafetz et al [20] reported that training improved correct classification of patients with AIS C from 29 to 54% and of those with AIS D from 37 to 84%, and stated clearly that accurate classification of AIS designation remained unacceptably low even after training.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Generally, intra-rater and inter-rater agreements among trained or experienced raters were acceptable; [17,[21][22][23] however, even for trained examiners, the agreements of sensory and/or motor examination were less reliable in patients with an incomplete SCI than in those with a complete SCI [19,22]. In addition, although several studies have reported that training improved accuracy of agreement [15,16,18,20,[24][25][26], efficacy was significantly lower in incomplete than in complete SCI [15,16,20,[24][25][26]. For example, Chafetz et al [20] reported that training improved correct classification of patients with AIS C from 29 to 54% and of those with AIS D from 37 to 84%, and stated clearly that accurate classification of AIS designation remained unacceptably low even after training.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Several studies reported the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of ISNCSCI [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Generally, intra-rater and inter-rater agreements among trained or experienced raters were acceptable; [17,[21][22][23] however, even for trained examiners, the agreements of sensory and/or motor examination were less reliable in patients with an incomplete SCI than in those with a complete SCI [19,22].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations