ArticleTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2025
Development and Validation of an Algorithm for Item Reduction of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury Examination to Determine Level and Severity of SCI.
Article in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2020, a first, expedited version of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (E-ISNCSCI-V1) was proposed for determination of neurological level of injury (NLI) and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) classifications. Objectives: This work describes assessment of E-ISNCSCI-V1 classification accuracy and the development and data-based validation of an ISNCSCI Item Reduction Algorithm (IIRA). Methods: Classification accuracy for E-ISNCSCI-V1 examination shortcut options was assessed with automated analysis of 7026 full ISNCSCI examinations. Rules for the IIRA were iteratively adjusted to optimize the balance between omitting exam items and minimizing misclassification errors, and then it was validated through classification of 100 full ISNCSCI exams. Results: If S1 findings are substituted for anorectal exam findings as proposed for E-ISNCSCI-V1, the error rate for AIS is 10%, with a high error rate (45%) for classifying true AIS B. The IIRA, which begins with full motor testing, followed by limited sensory testing required an average of 31% (42/134) of the full ISNCSCI exam items, with a 2% error rate for NLI and no AIS errors. Conclusion: The previously proposed E-ISNCSCI-V1, which included an option to substitute S1 findings for anorectal exam findings, is not recommended due to AIS error rate. The IIRA provides a standardized option for a shortened examination classifying NLI and AIS with high accuracy. It will serve as a basis for version 2 of the E-ISNCSCI.
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.