Cited by 3,963

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Sensitive and Reliable Locomotor Rating Scale for Open Field Testing in Rats

BASSO, D. MICHELE, BEATTIE, MICHAEL S., BRESNAHAN, JACQUELINE C.·1995·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

Behavioral assessment after spinal cord contusion has long focused on open field locomotion using modifications of a rating scale developed by Tarlov and Klinger (1954). However, on-going modifications by several groups have made interlaboratory comparison of locomotor outcome measures difficult. The purpose of the present study was to develop an efficient, expanded, and unambiguous locomotor rating scale to standardize locomotor outcome measures across laboratories. Adult rats (n = 85) were contused at T7-9 cord level with an electromagnetic or weight drop device. Locomotor behavior was evaluated before injury, on the first or second postoperative day, and then for up to 10 weeks. Scoring categories and attributes were identified, operationally defined, and ranked based on the observed sequence of locomotor recovery patterns. These categories formed the Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan (BBB) Locomotor Rating Scale. The data indicate that the BBB scale is a valid and predictive measure of locomotor recovery able to distinguish behavioral outcomes due to different injuries and to predict anatomical alterations at the lesion center. Interrater reliability tests indicate that examiners with widely varying behavioral testing experience can apply the scale consistently and obtain similar scores. The BBB Locomotor Rating Scale offers investigators a more discriminating measure of behavioral outcome to evaluate treatments after spinal cord injury.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/neu.1995.12.1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 1987, Barbeau & Rossignol, 1989
  2. 10.1016/0006-8993(87)91442-9 · DOI
  3. BASSO D.M., 1993, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr., 19, 541
  4. BASSO D.M., 1994, J. Neurotrauma, 11, 103
  5. BASSO D.M., 1994, Restor. Neurol. Rehabil., 7, 95
  6. BEATTIE M.S., 1989, M. Brown and M.E. Goldberger (eds.). American Paralysis Association: Springfield, NJ, 16
  7. 10.1089/neu.1992.9.197 · DOI
  8. 10.1006/exnr.1993.1028 · DOI
  9. 10.1006/exnr.1994.1042 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/0014-4886(87)90299-8 · DOI
  11. 10.3171/jns.1994.80.1.0097 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/0014-2999(83)90487-9 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1984.tb10074.x · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1980.tb06534.x · DOI
  15. 10.1016/0014-4886(85)90118-9 · DOI
  16. 10.1007/BF00248226 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/0014-4886(90)90149-M · DOI
  18. 10.1089/neu.1992.9.123 · DOI
  19. 10.1089/neu.1992.9.177 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/0014-4886(92)90174-O · DOI
  21. 10.1002/cne.901580103 · DOI
  22. 10.1089/cns.1987.4.149 · DOI
  23. 10.1007/BF00238857 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/0014-4886(91)90036-C · DOI
  25. 10.1089/neu.1992.9.187 · DOI
  26. 10.1001/archneurpsyc.1954.02320390001001 · DOI
  27. VIERCK C.J., 1989, M. Brown and M.E. Goldberger (eds). American Paralysis Association: Springfield, NJ, 41
  28. WRATHALL J.R., 1989, M. Brown and M.E. Goldberger (eds.). American Paralysis Association: Springfield, NJ, 26

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3,963

Metadata

Authors
BASSO, D. M., BEATTIE, M. S., & BRESNAHAN, J. C.
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
1995-02
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 0897-7151
  • 1557-9042
Cited by
3,963
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review