ArticleSpinal cord2022
Theoretical and practical training improves knowledge of the examination guidelines of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury.
Article in Spinal cord, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- ShuffleLeNet architecture for spinal cord injury classification and level detection.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 · 2026Article
- The Italian version of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2026Article
- Development of the tele-neurological assessment for the level, severity, and completeness of spinal cord injury (TNASCI): reliability and validity.Spinal cord · 2025Article
- Clarifications of the Motor Level Definition in the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury in Not Clinically Testable Myotomes.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Article
- Lower Motoneuron Dysfunction Impacts Spontaneous Motor Recovery in Acute Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of neurotrauma · 2023Observational
- Noxious radiant heat evokes bi-component nociceptive withdrawal reflexes in spinal cord injured humans-A clinical tool to study neuroplastic changes of spinal neural circuits.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- The International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury: Classification Accuracy and Challenges.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Pattern of neurological recovery in persons with an acute cervical spinal cord injury over the first 14 days post injury.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Article
- Impact of Heterotopic Ossification on Functional Recovery in Acute Spinal Cord Injury.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2022Article
- Implementation of multilingual support of the European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI) ISNCSCI calculator.Spinal cord · 2022Article
- Revisiting the Examination of Sharp/Dull Discrimination as Clinical Measure of Spinothalamic Tract Integrity.Frontiers in neurology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designProspective pre-post study.
objectivesInternational Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) represents the most frequently used assessment to determine the level and severity of a spinal cord injury (SCI). The guidelines for ISNCSCI are complex and challenging. Knowledge of its correct execution needs to be imparted precisely. The aim of this study was to investigate whether hands-on instructional courses can increase the knowledge of the ISNCSCI examination guidelines.
settingEuropean Multicenter Study about SCI.
methodsBefore and after the instructional courses, participants were asked to complete questionnaires. The set of questions covered the most important aspects of the examination guidelines. Attendees were asked to self-rate their occupation and experience in ISNCSCI.
resultsThe comparison of pretest and posttest results of 164 attendees from 2014 to 2018 revealed an improvement of knowledge reflected by an increase of correct answers from 66 ± 17% before to 89 ± 11% after the course (p < 0.01). The improvement was not associated with occupation (p > 0.1). However, the correctness of pretest results differed concerning both the period of experience with ISNCSCI (p < 0.05) and the course language (p < 0.01), while the frequency of execution resulted in differences in the posttest (p = 0.01).
conclusionsInstructional courses substantially improve knowledge of the ISNCSCI examination guidelines. Differences in knowledge present before the course leveled off after the course. Comprehensive theoretical training is strongly recommended to ensure reliability and validity of ISNCSCI examinations in clinical routine and research. Albeit being practiced in the instructional courses, the benefit of hands-on training still needs to be systematically evaluated in future studies.
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.