Classifying incomplete spinal cord injury syndromes: Algorithms based on the international standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury patients

Citation
Kc. Hayes et al., Classifying incomplete spinal cord injury syndromes: Algorithms based on the international standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury patients, ARCH PHYS M, 81(5), 2000, pp. 644-652
Citations number
36
Categorie Soggetti
Ortopedics, Rehabilitation & Sport Medicine
Journal title
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
ISSN journal
00039993 → ACNP
Volume
81
Issue
5
Year of publication
2000
Pages
644 - 652
Database
ISI
SICI code
0003-9993(200005)81:5<644:CISCIS>2.0.ZU;2-M
Abstract
Objective: To develop an objective and uniform means for classifying patien ts with incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI) according to SCI syndromes. Design: Criteria for assigning the syndromes (defined by the International Standards for Neurological and functional Classification of SCI Patients) w ere operationalized by means of sensory and motor scores and were incorpora ted into a set of six independent algorithms and two composite algorithms. Setting: A regional SCI rehabilitation center in Canada. Patients: SCI patients (n = 56) with incomplete injuries (American Spinal I njury Association classes B, C, D) and stable neurologic deficits. Results: Individual algorithms allowed the highest classification rate but with some patients meeting the criteria for more than one syndrome. A compo site, differential allocation algorithm, with selected thresholds at decisi on nodes, yielded a classification rate approximating that of the individua l algorithms but without double classifications. Conclusions: The composite algorithm provided an objective and standardized means of assigning patients to syndromes based on clinically measurable se nsory and motor scores. The thresholds used to implement criteria and the o rder of decision nodes greatly influenced the outcomes and may be adjusted to suit the needs of the classification. that is, embracing liberal or stri ngent criteria. Controversy remains about the interpretation of some syndro mes, and many patients remain unclassifiable because of mixed clinical pres entation.