ArticleSpinal cord2025
Development of the tele-neurological assessment for the level, severity, and completeness of spinal cord injury (TNASCI): reliability and validity.
Article in Spinal cord, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designPsychometric study.
objectivesTo introduce a novel, simple, tele-assessment tool designed to report the level and severity of spinal cord injury (SCI) and to assess its reliability and validity.
settingTwo academic-affiliated rehabilitation facilities in Thailand.
methodsThe Tele-Neurological Assessment for the level, severity, and completeness of Spinal Cord Injury (TNASCI) was designed to assess the SCI level and severity according to the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) using telecommunication. This study comprised three phases: (1) the development process involving three experts using the Delphi method, (2) a face validity examination of each TNASCI item's comprehension and suitability, and (3) an evaluation of the concurrent validity, intra-rater reliability, and inter-rater reliability using data from 40 participants with chronic SCI (>12 months post-injury).
resultsThe Thai version of TNASCI, was developed to contain four sections, including sensory, motor, anorectal function, and summary sections to determine the SCI level and severity grade. The assessment tool exhibited good face validity. When compared with the ISNCSCI, the TNASCI showed good to excellent inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (2,1) of 0.791-0.941 and an ICC (3,1) of 0.785-1.00, and good to excellent validity in almost all sections except for the sensory-related components (r = 0.764-0.986).
conclusionsOur TNASCI tool, which was assessed by trained clinicians, demonstrated acceptable inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, face validity, and concurrent validity. It serves as an alternative tool to evaluate the SCI level and severity predominantly in people with chronic, motor-complete SCI who cannot be evaluated using the hands-on ISNCSCI in person. However, this study is an initial step in validating a novel tele-assessment tool, with future studies needed to confirm its utility in other conditions and settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40751089What 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.