Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33990886›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2021

Assessment of variability in motor grading and patient-reported outcome reporting: a multi-specialty, multi-national survey.

Brandon W Smith, Sarada Sakamuri, Kara E Flavin, Michael Jensen, David A Purger, Lynda J-S Yang, Robert J Spinner, Thomas J Wilson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Brandon W SmithDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sarada SakamuriDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Kara E FlavinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Michael JensenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, R293, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
David A PurgerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, R293, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Lynda J-S YangDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Robert J SpinnerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Thomas J WilsonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, R293, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. wilsontj@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of this survey-based study was to evaluate the current practice patterns of clinicians who assess patients with peripheral nerve pathologies and to assess variance in motor grading on the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale using example case vignettes.

methodsAn electronic survey was distributed to clinicians who regularly assess patients with peripheral nerve pathology. Survey sections included (1) demographic data, (2) vignettes where respondents were asked to assess on the MRC scale, and (3) assessment of practice patterns regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures. Inter-rater reliability statistics were calculated for the application of the MRC scale on example vignettes.

resultsThere were 109 respondents. There was significant dispersion in motor grading seen on the example vignettes. For the raw responses grading the example vignettes on the MRC scale, Krippendorff's alpha was 0.788 (95% CI 0.604, 0.991); Gwet's AC2 was 0.808 (95% CI 0.683, 0.932); Fleiss' kappa was 0.416 (95% CI 0.413, 0.419). Most respondents reported not utilizing any patient-reported outcome measures across peripheral nerve pathologies. DISCUSSION: Our data show that there is significant disagreement among providers when applying the MRC scale. It is important for us to reassess our current tools for patient evaluation in order to improve upon both clinical evaluation and outcomes reporting. Consensus guidelines for outcomes reporting are needed, and domains outside of manual muscle testing should be included.

Indexed as

Motor ActivityPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesManual motor testingPatient-reported outcomePeripheral nerveSurvey

Identifiers

PMID33990886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.