Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 580

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury

Open access
Rupp, Rüdiger, Biering-Sørensen, Fin, Burns, Stephen P., Graves, Daniel E., Guest, James, Jones, Linda, Read, Mary Schmidt, Rodriguez, Gianna M., Schuld, Christian, Tansey-MD, Keith E., Walden, Kristen, Kirshblum, Steven·2021·Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation

Abstract

Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) that describes the examination (referred to as the International Standards examination) as well as the classification including the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS).In this edition, substantial revisions have been made in addition to the 2015 update of the 7th edition.(The key changes made in 2015 are found below. 1,2) The revisions in this new edition are based not only upon comments, questions, and suggestions from the international community of spinal cord injury (SCI) clinicians and researchers, but also take into account recently available evidence and structured feedback from ISNCSCI training courses. 3,4Due to the space constraints in this booklet, more details and explanations about each of the revisions will be/are separately published as journal articles.The following is a summary of the revisions included in this booklet. Documentation of non-SCI-related impairments: Most of the questions received by the InternationalStandards Committee over the last few years were related to the correct documentation of non-SCIrelated, pre-existing musculoskeletal or neurological problems.Such problems include among others chronic peripheral nerve injuries, acute or chronic pain, or age-related muscle weakness.In particular, age-related impairments represent a growing problem due to the increasing age of acutely injured persons seen in industrial countries.In the 7th edition of ISNCSCI, the only method for documentation of non-SCI-related impairments is the use of the "5*" grade in the motor exam.However, no such concept exists for documentation of non-SCI-related sensory deficits function.Additionally, guidelines on how to indicate the presence of "5*"s in classification variables such as levels or the AIS are missing.To address this issue, a general "*" concept applicable to the motor as well as the sensory exam independent from the level of occurrence (above, at, or below the sensory/motor level) is introduced in this edition: In those cases with non-SCI-related impairments, abnormal sensory and/or motor scores should be scored as examined and tagged with an "'*" to indicate that a non-SCI condition is impacting the examination results.If an examiner tags a score with the "*", details on the reason for this and how this "*"-tagged score should be handled during the classification process need to be specified in the Comments box.While "*"-tagged scores above the sensory/motor level will in most cases be handled as normal during classification, "*"-tagged scores at or below the motor/sensory level indicating a non-SCI-related impairment superimposed to the deficit caused by the SCI will typically be handled as not normal.Each classification variable such as levels or AIS, which is affected by the "*"-tagged scores, should also be designated with an "*".By this method, it is clearly indicated that the classification results are based on clinical interpretation of the recorded scores.The use of the "5*" grade to indicate that the active movement would be considered normal, if an identified inhibiting factor were not present, is not recommended anymore.Instead, the actual result of the motor examination should be noted, tagged with an "*", and the inhibiting factor together with the information that this score should be treated as normal during classification should be provided in the Comments box. Zone of partial preservation:The definition of the zone of partial preservation (ZPP) has been revised and extended to incomplete lesions with either missing voluntary anal contraction (VAC) or missing sensory function (deep anal pressure [DAP], light touch and pin prick).Besides the added value for clinical communication purposes, new evidence has become available that the ZPP based on this new definition provides a better prognosis of neurological recovery.5The ZPP definition has been changed as follows

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.46292/sci2702-1

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rupp, R., Biering-Sørensen, F., Burns, S. P., Graves, D. E., Guest, J., Jones, L., Read, M. S., Rodriguez, G. M., Schuld, C., Tansey-MD, K. E., Walden, K., & Kirshblum, S.
Venue
Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation
Published
2021-03-01
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
1-22
ISSN
1082-0744 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3164970519
Cited by
580
References
16
FWCI
33.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.