下颈椎损伤分类的可撕裂性

Andrey Grin , Ivan Lvov , Aleksandr Talypov , Anton Kordonskiy , Ulugbek Khushnazarov , Vladimir Krylov
{"title":"下颈椎损伤分类的可撕裂性","authors":"Andrey Grin ,&nbsp;Ivan Lvov ,&nbsp;Aleksandr Talypov ,&nbsp;Anton Kordonskiy ,&nbsp;Ulugbek Khushnazarov ,&nbsp;Vladimir Krylov","doi":"10.1016/j.neucie.2022.02.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To compare the teachability of the Allen–Ferguson, Harris, Argenson, AOSpine, Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (SLIC), Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (CSISS) and to identify the classification that a group of residents and junior neurosurgeons find easiest to learn.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used data from 64 consecutive patients. Answers of nine residents and junior neurosurgeons and four experienced surgeons in two assessment procedures were used. Six raters (workshop group) participated in special seminars between assessments. Three other raters formed the control group. Experienced surgeon's answers were used for comparison. Teachability was measured as the median value of the difference (Δ<em>K</em>) in the interrater agreement on the same patients by the same pairs of subjects.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Median Δ <em>K</em> for the Allen–Ferguson, Harris, Argenson and AOSpine classifications were: (1) 0.01, 0.02, 0.29, and 0.39 for the workshop group; (2). 0.09, −0.03, 0.06 and 0.04 for the control group, respectively. Between numerical scales, median Δ<em>K</em> was higher for SLIC but did not exceed 0.16. Interrater consistency with expert's opinion was increased in the workshop group for Allen–Ferguson, Argenson and AOSpine and did not differ in either group for SLIC and CSISS.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The AOSpine classification was the most teachable. Among numeric scales, SLIC demonstrated better results. The successful application of these classifications by residents and junior neurosurgeons was possible after a short educational course. The use of these scales in educational cycles at the stage of residency can significantly simplify the communication between specialists, especially at the stage of patient admission.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74273,"journal":{"name":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","volume":"34 2","pages":"Pages 80-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teachability of lower cervical spine injury classifications\",\"authors\":\"Andrey Grin ,&nbsp;Ivan Lvov ,&nbsp;Aleksandr Talypov ,&nbsp;Anton Kordonskiy ,&nbsp;Ulugbek Khushnazarov ,&nbsp;Vladimir Krylov\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.neucie.2022.02.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To compare the teachability of the Allen–Ferguson, Harris, Argenson, AOSpine, Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (SLIC), Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (CSISS) and to identify the classification that a group of residents and junior neurosurgeons find easiest to learn.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used data from 64 consecutive patients. Answers of nine residents and junior neurosurgeons and four experienced surgeons in two assessment procedures were used. Six raters (workshop group) participated in special seminars between assessments. Three other raters formed the control group. Experienced surgeon's answers were used for comparison. Teachability was measured as the median value of the difference (Δ<em>K</em>) in the interrater agreement on the same patients by the same pairs of subjects.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Median Δ <em>K</em> for the Allen–Ferguson, Harris, Argenson and AOSpine classifications were: (1) 0.01, 0.02, 0.29, and 0.39 for the workshop group; (2). 0.09, −0.03, 0.06 and 0.04 for the control group, respectively. Between numerical scales, median Δ<em>K</em> was higher for SLIC but did not exceed 0.16. Interrater consistency with expert's opinion was increased in the workshop group for Allen–Ferguson, Argenson and AOSpine and did not differ in either group for SLIC and CSISS.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The AOSpine classification was the most teachable. Among numeric scales, SLIC demonstrated better results. The successful application of these classifications by residents and junior neurosurgeons was possible after a short educational course. The use of these scales in educational cycles at the stage of residency can significantly simplify the communication between specialists, especially at the stage of patient admission.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurocirugia (English Edition)\",\"volume\":\"34 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 80-86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurocirugia (English Edition)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2529849622000831\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2529849622000831","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较Allen–Ferguson、Harris、Argenson、AOSpine、亚轴颈脊髓损伤分类法(SLIC)和亚轴颈脊柱损伤分类法的可教性,并确定一组住院医师和初级神经外科医生认为最容易学习的分类。方法我们使用了64名连续患者的数据。在两个评估程序中,使用了九名住院医师和初级神经外科医生以及四名经验丰富的外科医生的答案。六名评分员(工作小组)参加了评估间隙的特别研讨会。另外三名评分者组成对照组。使用经验丰富的外科医生的答案进行比较。可撕裂性测量为同一对受试者对同一患者的评分者间一致性差异的中值(ΔK)。结果Allen–Ferguson、Harris、Argenson和AOSpine分类的中位数ΔK为:(1)车间组为0.01、0.02、0.29和0.39;(2) 。对照组分别为0.09、-0.03、0.06和0.04。在数值尺度之间,SLIC的中值ΔK较高,但不超过0.16。Allen–Ferguson、Argenson和AOSpine的研讨会组与专家意见的一致性得到了提高,SLIC和CSISS的两组之间没有差异。结论AOSpine分类是最可教的。在数字量表中,SLIC显示出更好的结果。住院医师和初级神经外科医生在经过短暂的教育课程后,有可能成功地应用这些分类。在住院阶段的教育周期中使用这些量表可以显著简化专家之间的沟通,尤其是在患者入院阶段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teachability of lower cervical spine injury classifications

Objectives

To compare the teachability of the Allen–Ferguson, Harris, Argenson, AOSpine, Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (SLIC), Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (CSISS) and to identify the classification that a group of residents and junior neurosurgeons find easiest to learn.

Methods

We used data from 64 consecutive patients. Answers of nine residents and junior neurosurgeons and four experienced surgeons in two assessment procedures were used. Six raters (workshop group) participated in special seminars between assessments. Three other raters formed the control group. Experienced surgeon's answers were used for comparison. Teachability was measured as the median value of the difference (ΔK) in the interrater agreement on the same patients by the same pairs of subjects.

Results

Median Δ K for the Allen–Ferguson, Harris, Argenson and AOSpine classifications were: (1) 0.01, 0.02, 0.29, and 0.39 for the workshop group; (2). 0.09, −0.03, 0.06 and 0.04 for the control group, respectively. Between numerical scales, median ΔK was higher for SLIC but did not exceed 0.16. Interrater consistency with expert's opinion was increased in the workshop group for Allen–Ferguson, Argenson and AOSpine and did not differ in either group for SLIC and CSISS.

Conclusion

The AOSpine classification was the most teachable. Among numeric scales, SLIC demonstrated better results. The successful application of these classifications by residents and junior neurosurgeons was possible after a short educational course. The use of these scales in educational cycles at the stage of residency can significantly simplify the communication between specialists, especially at the stage of patient admission.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信