Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 23, 2026
A Novel Method for Assessing Proximal and Distal Forelimb Function in the Rat: the Irvine, Beatties and Bresnahan IBB Forelimb Scale
Published on: December 16, 2010
Achieving assessor accuracy on the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury
A J Armstrong1,2, J M Clark3, D T Ho1
1Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Science, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
Study Design:
A retrospective audit of assessor accuracy using the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) in three multicentre randomised controlled trials (SCIPA: Spinal Cord Injury and Physical Activity) spanning 2010-2014 with standards revised in 2011.
Objectives:
To investigate assessor accuracy of neurological classification after spinal cord injury.
Setting:
Australia and New Zealand.
Methods:
ISNCSCI examinations were undertaken by trained clinicians prior to randomisation. Data were recorded manually and ISNCSCI worksheets circulated to panels, consensus reached and worksheets corrected. An audit team used a 2014 computerised ISNCSCI algorithm to check manual worksheets. A second audit team assessed whether the 2014 computerised algorithm accurately reflected pre- and post-2011 ISNCSCI standards.
Results:
Of the 208 ISNCSCI worksheets, 24 were excluded. Of the remaining 184 worksheets, 47 (25.5%) were consistent with the 2014 computerised algorithm and 137 (74.5%) contained one or more errors. Errors were in motor (30.1%) or sensory (12.4%) levels, zone of partial preservation (24.0%), motor/sensory scoring (21.5%), ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS, 8.3%) and complete/incomplete classification (0.8%). Other difficulties included classification when anal contraction/sensation was omitted, incorrect neurological levels and violation of the 'motor follows sensory rule in non-testable myotomes' (7.4%). Panel errors comprised corrections that were incorrect or missed or incorrect changes to correct worksheets.
Conclusion:
Given inaccuracies in the manual ISNCSCI worksheets in this long-term clinical trial setting, continued training and a computerised algorithm are essential to ensure accurate scoring, scaling and classification of the ISNCSCI and confidence in clinical trials.
