ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
External Multicenter Study of Reliability and Reproducibility for Lower Cervical Spine Injuries Classification Systems-Part 1: A Comparison of Morphological Schemes.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical spine trauma: impact of different imaging classification systems in the clinical decision-making.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Article
- Accuracy and reliability of the AO Spine subaxial cervical spine classification system grading subaxial cervical facet injury morphology.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designMulticenter observational survey study.
objectivesTo quantify and compare the inter- and intraobserver reliability of Allen-Fergusson (A-F), Harris, Argenson, and AOSpine (AOS) classifications for cervical spine injuries, in a multicentric survey of neurosurgeons with different levels of experience.
methodsWe used data of 64 consecutive patients. Totally, 37 surgeons (from 7 centers), were included in the study. The initial assessment was returned by 36 raters. The second assessment performed after 1.5 months included 24 raters.
resultsWe received 15 111 answers for 3840 evaluations. Raters reached a fair general agreement of the A-F scale, while the experienced group achieved κ = 0.39. While all groups showed moderate interrater reliability for primary assessment of Harris scale (κ = 0.44), the κ value for experts decreased from 0.58 to 0.49. The Argenson scale demonstrated moderate and substantial agreement among all raters (κ = 0.47 and κ = 0.55, respectively). The AOS scheme primary assessment general kappa value for all types of injuries and across all raters was 0.49, reaching substantial agreement among experts (κ = 0.62) with moderate agreement across beginner and intermediate groups (κ = 0.48 and κ = 0.44, respectively). The second assessment general agreement kappa value reached 0.56.
conclusionsWe found the highest values of interobserver agreement and reproducibility among surgeons with different levels of experience with Argenson and AOSpine classifications. The AOSpine scale additionally incorporated more detailed description of compression injuries and facet-joint fractures. Agreement levels reached for Allen-Fergusson and Harris scales were fair and moderate, respectively, indicating difficulty of their application in clinical practice, especially by junior specialists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.