ArticleSpinal cord2020
An interview based approach to the anorectal portion of the International Standards of Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury Exam (I-A-ISNCSCI): a pilot study.
Article in Spinal cord, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of the tele-neurological assessment for the level, severity, and completeness of spinal cord injury (TNASCI): reliability and validity.Spinal cord · 2025Article
- Steroid inhibited Serpina3n expression which was positively correlated with the degrees of spinal cord injury.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Identification of a reliable sacral-sparing examination to assess the ASIA impairment scale in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2024Article
- Application value of biofluid-based biomarkers for the diagnosis and treatment of spinal cord injury.Neural regeneration research · 2022Article
- The Value of DTI Parameters in Predicting Postoperative Spinal Cord Function Fluctuations in Patients with High Cervical Disc Tumors.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designProspective, single-blinded study.
objectiveTo design and evaluate the use of an interview based version of the anorectal portion of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) exam in the acute inpatient rehabilitation (AIR) setting.
settingAIR unit.
methodsParticipants admitted to AIR underwent standard ISNCSCI exams (S-ISNCSCI) as part of routine inpatient care within 3 days of being administered an interview version of the anorectal portion of the ISNCSCI (I-A-ISNCSCI). Agreement between the anorectal portion of the S-ISNCSCI (S-A-ISNCSCI) and the I-A-ISNCSCI was evaluated.
resultsForty of forty-five enrolled participants completed the assessments. Agreement between the I-A-ISNCSCI and S-A-ISNCSCI was substantial for anorectal sensation to light touch (k = 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.90, N = 36), pin prick (k = 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.87, N = 38), deep anal pressure (k = 0.77, 95% CI 0.53-1.00, N = 37), and completeness of injury based on combined sacral sensory criteria (k = 0.72, 95% CI 0.47-0.97, N = 40); and fair for voluntary anal contraction (k = 0.29, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.59, N = 36). Responses of "I don't know" were excluded from agreement analyses.
conclusionsThis pilot study was a first step in developing interview based tools such as the I-A-ISNCSCI in an AIR setting providing convenient access to individuals with SCI and their direct feedback. The study design introduces potential recall bias and may not match true clinical situations such as remote follow-up of neurological changes for chronic patients. The use of interview based tools for assessing individuals with SCI remains worthy of further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31822807What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.