Dataset Information

Applicability of the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (PROST) in people with motor-complete spinal cord injury: a cognitive interview study.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

This is a cognitive interview study.

Objectives

To examine the applicability of the Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AO Spine PROST) in people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).

Setting

Two rehabilitation centers in The Netherlands.

Method

Semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with 29 adults with a motor-complete SCI (AISA Impairment Scale A or B). Participants were asked to complete the AO Spine PROST and four additional evaluation questions rated on a 1-5-point Likert scale (5 most positive), while verbalizing their thoughts about their answers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Codes were identified and linked to a coding scheme. Qualitative data were used to interpret the quantitative results.

Results

Almost three-quarters of the participants (71.4%) had a traumatic SCI. Positive ratings of the measure were obtained regards comprehensibility (mean 4.0), non-offensiveness (4.6), relevance (4.2), and completeness (3.6). A question about the emotional impact of SCI was indicated to be missing. How using an assistive device should weigh in the score was a recurring topic. The use of multiple examples per item raised uncertainty, mostly solved by averaging their score. Some individuals indicated that the possibility to express even better function compared to before the onset of injury would be valuable.

Conclusions

Overall, the AO Spine PROST appears applicable in adults with a motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Recommendations are made for improvement in instructions, terminology, and examples used in the tool. This study contributes to the further development of the AO Spine PROST in spine trauma care and research.

SUBMITTER: Hakbijl AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9261216 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designMulticenter validation study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to translate and adapt the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into English, and test its psychometric properties among North-American spine trauma patients.Summary of background dataIn the absence of an outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for traumatic spinal column injury patients, it is difficult to measure the effect size of various treatment options. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project and developed the AOSpine PROST consisting of 19 items.MethodsPatients were recruited from two level-1 North-American trauma centers. For concurrent validity, next to AOSpine PROST also 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was filled out by patients. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Floor and ceiling effects as well as the number of inapplicable and missing questions were analyzed for content validity. Cronbach α and item-total correlation coefficients (ITCCs) were calculated for internal consistency. Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation to SF-36. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST.ResultsThe AOSpine PROST was translated adapted into English using established guidelines. Of 196 enrolled patients, 162 (82.7%) met the inclusion criteria and provided sufficient data. Content validity showed good results, and no floor and ceiling effects were seen. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach α = 0.97; ITCC 0.50-0.90) as well as test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97). Spearman correlations were good (0.29-0.85). The strongest correlations of AOSpine PROST with SF-36 were seen with the physical components (0.69-0.82; P < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigen values >1), explaining 75.7% of variance.ConclusionThe English version of AOSpine PROST showed very good validity and reliability. It is considered as a valuable tool, and has the potential to contribute to the reduction of ongoing controversies in spine trauma care.Level of evidence2.

Project description:Study designGlobal cross-sectional survey.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification by examining the perceived injury severity by surgeon across AO geographical regions and practice experience.Summary of background dataPrevious subaxial cervical spine injury classifications have been limited by subpar interobserver reliability and clinical applicability. In an attempt to create a universally validated scheme with prognostic value, AO Spine established a subaxial cervical spine injury classification involving four elements: injury morphology, facet injury involvement, neurologic status, and case-specific modifiers.MethodsA survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. Respondents graded the severity of each variable of the classification system on a scale from zero (low severity) to 100 (high severity). Primary outcome was to assess differences in perceived injury severity for each injury type over geographic regions and level of practice experience.ResultsA total of 189 responses were received. Overall, the classification system exhibited a hierarchical progression in subtype injury severity scores. Only three subtypes showed a significant difference in injury severity score among geographic regions: F3 (floating lateral mass fracture, P = 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P = 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P = 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P = 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P = 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P = 0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score.ConclusionThe AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System has shown to be reliable and suitable for proper patient management. The study shows this classification is substantially generalizable by geographic region and surgeon experience, and provides a consistent method of communication among physicians while covering the majority of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries.Level of Evidence: 4.

Project description:Study designNarrative summary of the 2023 AO Spine-Praxis clinical practice guidelines for management in acute spinal cord injury (SCI).ObjectivesThe objective of this article is to summarize the key findings of the clinical practice guidelines for the optimal management of traumatic and intraoperative SCI (ISCI). This article will also highlight potential knowledge translation opportunities for each recommendation and discuss important knowledge gaps and areas of future research.MethodsSystematic reviews were conducted according to accepted methodological standards to evaluate the current body of evidence and inform the guideline development process. The summarized evidence was reviewed by a multidisciplinary guidelines development group that consisted of international multidisciplinary stakeholders. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of the evidence for each critical outcome and the "evidence to recommendation" framework was used to formulate the final recommendations.ResultsThe key recommendations regarding the timing of surgical decompression, hemodynamic management, and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of ISCI are summarized. While a strong recommendation was made for early surgery, further prospective research is required to define what constitutes sufficient surgical decompression, examine the role of ultra-early surgery, and assess the impact of early surgery in different SCI phenotypes, including central cord syndrome. Furthermore, additional investigation is required to evaluate the impact of mean arterial blood pressure targets on neurological recovery and to determine the utility of spinal cord perfusion pressure measurements. Finally, there is a need to examine the role of neuroprotective agents for the treatment of ISCI and to prospectively validate the new AO Spine-Praxis care pathway for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of ISCI. To optimize the translation of these guidelines into practice, important barriers to their implementation, particularly in underserved areas, need to be explored. Ultimately, these recommendations will help to establish more personalized approaches to care for SCI patients.ConclusionsThe recommendations from the 2023 AO Spine-Praxis guidelines not only highlight the current best practice in the management of SCI, but reveal critical knowledge gaps and barriers to implementation that will help to guide further research efforts in SCI.