Assessment of Impairment in Patients with Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The most common primary end-point of the trial on treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is the degree of impairment. The American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Standards have been widely used to assess motor function and pin-prick and light-touch sensory function. In addition, pain assessment is another clinically relevant aspect of the impairment in individuals with SCI. Given this, we sought to systematically review the studies that focused on the psychometric properties of ASIA Standards and all previously used outcome measures of pain in the SCI population in the acute care setting. For the primary literature search strategy, the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were sought out. Subsequently, a secondary search strategy was carried out using the articles listed in the references of meta-analysis, systematic, and non-systematic review articles. Two reviewers (JCF and VN) independently selected the articles that fulfill the inclusion and exclusion, assessed the level of evidence of each article, and appraised the psychometric properties of each instrument. Divergences during those steps were solved by consensus between both reviewers. Of 400 abstracts captured in our primary search strategy on the ASIA Standards, 16 full articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An additional 40 references were obtained from two prior systematic reviews on ASIA Standards. While 45 of 56 of the studies on ASIA Standards provided level 4 evidence, there were 11 level 2b evidence studies. Convergent construct validity (n = 34), reliability (n = 12), and responsiveness (n = 10) were the most commonly studied psychometric properties of the ASIA Standards, but two prior studies examined their content validity. Of the 267 abstracts yielded in our primary search on pain assessment, 24 articles with level 4 evidence fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was no study that examined pain assessment in the acute care setting. While 18 of 24 articles studied an instrument for assessment of pain intensity, the remaining six studies were focused on classifications of pain in the SCI population. In conclusion, the ASIA Standards represent an appropriate instrument to categorize and evaluate spinal cord injured adults over time with respect to their motor and sensory function. Nevertheless, further investigation of the psychometric properties of the ASIA Standards is recommended due to a lack of studies focused on some key elements of responsiveness, including minimal clinically important difference. The visual analog scale (VAS) is the most commonly studied instrument of assessment of pain intensity in the SCI population. However, further investigation is required with regard to its reliability and responsiveness in the SCI population. Our results also suggest that there is no instrument with appropriate psychometric properties for this particular population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».