Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Neurological Status in Spinal Cord Injury

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Measuring Spinal Cord Injury

  • 438 Accesses

Abstract

The objective of this chapter is to describe and evaluate the assessment tools to evaluate neurological status in people with SCI through a systematic review of scientific literature. The systematic review was conducted in line with COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) on Pubmed, Scopus, Cinahl, and Web of Science. After removing duplicates, 3333 papers were screened, and of these 476 were included in this systematic review. Among these, 28 papers were considered for this chapter. Results show 19 assessment tools that evaluate the neurological area in persons with SCI. The most common assessment tools are the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and the Spinal Cord Injury Spasticity Evaluation Tool (SCI-SET).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Rev Esp Nutr Human Diet. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

  2. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.

  3. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.

  4. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0.

  5. Priebe MM, Waring WP. The interobserver reliability of the revised American Spinal Injury Association standards for neurological classification of spinal injury patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1991. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-199110000-00007.

  6. Graves DE, Frankiewicz RG, Donovan WH. Construct validity and dimensional structure of the ASIA motor scale. J Spinal Cord Med. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2006.11753855.

  7. Catz A, Greenberg E, Itzkovich M, Bluvshtein V, Ronen J, Gelernter I. A new instrument for outcome assessment in rehabilitation medicine: spinal cord injury ability realization measurement index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00475-1.

  8. Scivoletto G, Glass C, Anderson KD, et al. An international age- and gender-controlled model for the spinal cord injury ability realization measurement index (SCI-ARMI). Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314524631.

  9. Krassioukov A, Wolfe DL, Hsieh JTC, Hayes KC, Durham CE. Quantitative sensory testing in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(10):1258–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90026-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Felix ER, Widerström-Noga EG. Reliability and validity of quantitative sensory testing in persons with spinal cord injury and neuropathic pain. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2008.04.0058.

  11. Yugué I, Okada S, Masuda M, Ueta T, Maeda T, Shiba K. “Knee-up test” for easy detection of postoperative motor deficits following spinal surgery. Spine J. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.08.015.

  12. Yugué I, Okada S, Maeda T, Ueta T, Shiba K. Sensitivity and specificity of the “knee-up test” for estimation of the American spinal injury association impairment scale in patients with acute motor incomplete cervical spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-017-0046-y.

  13. Haas BM, Bergström E, Jamous A, Bennie A. The inter rater reliability of the original and of the modified Ashworth scale for the assessment of spasticity in patients with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 1996. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.1996.100.

  14. Craven BC, Morris AR. Modified Ashworth scale reliability for measurement of lower extremity spasticity among patients with SCI. Spinal Cord. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2009.107.

  15. Smith AW, Jamshidi M, Lo SK. Clinical measurement of muscle tone using a velocity-corrected modified Ashworth scale. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-200203000-00008.

  16. Baunsgaard CB, Nissen UV, Christensen KB, Biering-Sørensen F. Modified Ashworth scale and spasm frequency score in spinal cord injury: reliability and correlation. Spinal Cord. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.230.

  17. Akpinar P, Atici A, Kurt KN, Ozkan FU, Aktas I, Kulcu DG. Reliability and cross-cultural adaptation of the Turkish version of the spinal cord injury spasticity evaluation tool. Int J Rehabil Res. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000223.

  18. Mishra C, Ganesh GS. Inter-Rater reliability of modified modified Ashworth scale in the assessment of plantar flexor muscle spasticity in patients with spinal cord injury. Physiother Res Int. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.1588.

  19. Adams MM, Ginis KAM, Hicks AL. The spinal cord injury spasticity evaluation tool: development and evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.06.012.

  20. Sweatman WM, Heinemann AW, Furbish CL, Field-Fote EC. Modified PRISM and SCI-SET spasticity measures for persons with traumatic spinal cord injury: results of a Rasch analyses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.05.012.

  21. Ansari NN, Kashi M, Naghdi S. The spinal cord injury spasticity evaluation tool: a Persian adaptation and validation study. J Spinal Cord Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2016.1195941.

  22. Benz EN, Hornby TG, Bode RK, Scheidt RA, Schmit BD. A physiologically based clinical measure for spastic reflexes in spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.033.

  23. Akpinar P, Atici A, Ozkan FU, Aktas I, Kulcu DG, Kurt KN. Reliability of the spinal cord assessment tool for spastic reflexes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.09.119.

  24. Cook KF, Teal CR, Engebretson JC, et al. Development and validation of patient reported impact of spasticity measure (PRISM). J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2006.04.0036.

  25. Jonsson M, Tollbäck A, Gonzales H, Borg J. Inter-rater reliability of the 1992 international standards for neurological and functional classification of incomplete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2000. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101067.

  26. Klose KJ, Green BA, Smith RS, Adkins RH, MacDonald AM. University of Miami neuro-spinal index (UMNI): a quantitative method for determining spinal cord function. Spinal Cord. 1980;18(5):331–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.1980.60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Taricco M, Apolone G, Colombo C, Filardo G, Telaro E, Liberati A. Functional status in patients with spinal cord injury: a new standardized measurement scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2000.7161.

  28. Kumar R, Arora S, Mohapatra D. Cervical spine injury recovery prediction scale: a means of predicting neurological recovery in patients with acute subaxial cervical spine injury. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2011. https://doi.org/10.1177/230949901101900106.

  29. Chehrazi B, Wagner FC, Collins WF, Freeman DH. A scale for evaluation of spinal cord injury. J Neurosurg. 1981;54(3):310–5. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1981.54.3.0310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Joghtaei M, Arab AM, Hashemi-Nasl H, Joghataei MT, Tokhi MO. Assessment of passive knee stiffness and viscosity in individuals with spinal cord injury using pendulum test. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1179/2045772314Y.0000000265.

  31. Platz T, Vuadens P, Eickhof C, Arnold P, Van Kaick S, Heise K. REPAS, a summary rating scale for resistance to passive movement: item selection, reliability and validity. Disabil Rehabil. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701191743.

  32. Mills PB, Vakil AP, Phillips C, Kei L, Kwon BK. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the Penn spasm frequency scale in people with chronic traumatic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-018-0063-5.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Anna Berardi, Giovanni Fabbrini & Giovanni Galeoto

  2. Department of Neurorehabilitation and Robotics, Bambino Gesù Paediatric Hospital, Rome, Italy

    Marco Tofani

  3. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Division, Umberto I University Hospital of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Filippo Camerota & Claudia Celletti

  4. IRCSS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy

    Giovanni Fabbrini

Authors
  1. Anna Berardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Tofani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Filippo Camerota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claudia Celletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giovanni Fabbrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giovanni Galeoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Berardi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Giovanni Galeoto

  2. Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Anna Berardi

  3. Department of Neurorehabilitation and Robotics, Bambino Gesù Paediatric Hospital, Rome, Italy

    Marco Tofani

  4. Universidad Fernando Pessoa-Canarias, Las Palmas, Spain

    Maria Auxiliadora Marquez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Berardi, A., Tofani, M., Camerota, F., Celletti, C., Fabbrini, G., Galeoto, G. (2021). Measuring Neurological Status in Spinal Cord Injury. In: Galeoto, G., Berardi, A., Tofani, M., Auxiliadora Marquez, M. (eds) Measuring Spinal Cord Injury. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68382-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68382-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-68381-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-68382-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation