Reliability and reproducibility of subaxial cervical injury description system: a standardized nomenclature schema.
Date
2011-08
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Repository Usage Stats
views
downloads
Citation Stats
Abstract
Study design
Radiographic measurement study.Objective
To develop a standardized cervical injury nomenclature system to facilitate description, communication, and classification among health care providers. The reliability and reproducibility of this system was then examined.Summary of background data
Description of subaxial cervical injuries is critical for treatment decision making and comparing scientific reports of outcomes. Despite a number of available classification systems, surgeons, and researchers continue to use descriptive nomenclature, such as "burst" and "teardrop" fractures, to describe injuries. However, there is considerable inconsistency with use of such terms in the literature.Methods
Eleven distinct injury types and associated definitions were established for the subaxial cervical spine and subsequently refined by members of the Spine Trauma Study Group. A series of 18 cases of patients with a broad spectrum of subaxial cervical spine injuries was prepared and distributed to surgeon raters. Each rater was provided with the full nomenclature document and asked to select primary and secondary injury types for each case. After receipt of the raters' first round of classifications, the cases were resorted and returned to the raters for a second round of review. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated as percent agreement and Cohen kappa (κ) values. Intrarater reliability was assessed by comparing a given rater's diagnosis from the first and second rounds.Results
Nineteen surgeons completed the first and second rounds of the study. Overall, the system demonstrated 56.4% interrater agreement and 72.8% intrarater agreement. Overall, interrater κ values demonstrated moderate agreement while intrarater κ values showed substantial agreement. Analyzed by injury types, only four (burst fractures, lateral mass fractures, flexion teardrop fractures, and anterior distraction injuries) demonstrated greater than 50% interrater agreement.Conclusion
This study demonstrated that, even in ideal circumstances, there is only moderate agreement among raters regarding cervical injury nomenclature. It is hoped that more familiarity with the proposed system will increase reproducibility in the future. Additional research is required to establish the clinical utility of this novel nomenclature schema.Type
Department
Description
Provenance
Citation
Permalink
Published Version (Please cite this version)
Publication Info
Bono, Christopher M, Andrew Schoenfeld, Giri Gupta, James S Harrop, Paul Anderson, Alpesh A Patel, John Dimar, Bizhan Aarabi, et al. (2011). Reliability and reproducibility of subaxial cervical injury description system: a standardized nomenclature schema. Spine, 36(17). pp. E1140–E1144. 10.1097/brs.0b013e318221a56d Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/29232.
This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.