• N Liu, Z W Hu, M W Zhou, and F Biering-Sørensen.
• Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
• Spinal Cord. 2014 Dec 1;52(12):919-22.

Study DesignDescriptive comparison analysis.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether five training cases of International Spinal Cord Injury Core Data Set (ISCICDS) are appropriate for testing the facts within the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) and could thus be used for testing its training effectiveness.MethodsThe authors reviewed the five training cases from the ISCICDS and determined the sensory level (SL), motor level (ML) and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) for the training cases. The key points from the training cases were compared with our interpretation of the key aspects of the ISNCSCI.ResultsFor determining SL, three principles of ML, sacral sparing, complete injury, classification of AIS A, B, C and D, determining motor incomplete status through sparing of motor function more than three levels below the ML, there are corresponding case scenarios in ISCICDS. However, no case scenario shows classification of AIS E and the use of voluntary anal sphincter contraction for determination of motor incomplete status. Neurological level of injury could be deduced from the SL and ML. Finally, none of the cases include information about zone of partial preservation, sensory score or motor score.ConclusionMajority of the facts related to SL, ML and AIS are included in the five training cases of ISCICDS. Thus, using these training cases, it is feasible to test the above facts within the ISNCSCI. It is suggested that the missing fact should be included in an update of the training cases.

18 keywords...

hide…