RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter observational survey. OBJECTIVE: To quantify and compare inter- and intraobserver reliability of the subaxial cervical spine injury classification (SLIC) and the cervical spine injury severity score (CSISS) in a multicentric survey of neurosurgeons with different experience levels. METHODS: Data concerning 64 consecutive patients who had undergone cervical spine surgery between 2013 and 2017 was evaluated, and we surveyed 37 neurosurgeons from 7 different clinics. All raters were divided into 3 groups depending on their level of experience. Two assessment procedures were performed. RESULTS: For the SLIC, we observed excellent agreement regarding management among experienced surgeons, whereas agreement among less experienced neurosurgeons was moderate and almost twice as unlikely. The sensitivity of SLIC relating to treatment tactics reached as high as 92.2%. For the CSISS, agreement regarding management ranged from medium to substantial, depending on a neurosurgeon's experience. For less experienced neurosurgeons, the level of agreement concerning surgical management was the same as for the SLIC in not exceeding a moderate level. However, this scale had insufficient sensitivity (slightly exceeding 50%). The reproducibility of both scales was excellent among all raters regardless of their experience level. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated better management reliability, sensitivity, and reproducibility for the SLIC, which provided moderate interrater agreement with moderate to excellent intraclass correlation coefficient indicators for all raters. The CSISS demonstrated high reproducibility; however, large variability in answers prevented raters from reaching a moderate level of agreement. Magnetic resonance imaging integration may increase sensitivity of CSISS in relation to fracture management.
RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter observational survey study. OBJECTIVES: To quantify and compare the inter- and intraobserver reliability of Allen-Fergusson (A-F), Harris, Argenson, and AOSpine (AOS) classifications for cervical spine injuries, in a multicentric survey of neurosurgeons with different levels of experience. METHODS: We used data of 64 consecutive patients. Totally, 37 surgeons (from 7 centers), were included in the study. The initial assessment was returned by 36 raters. The second assessment performed after 1.5 months included 24 raters. RESULTS: We received 15 111 answers for 3840 evaluations. Raters reached a fair general agreement of the A-F scale, while the experienced group achieved κ = 0.39. While all groups showed moderate interrater reliability for primary assessment of Harris scale (κ = 0.44), the κ value for experts decreased from 0.58 to 0.49. The Argenson scale demonstrated moderate and substantial agreement among all raters (κ = 0.47 and κ = 0.55, respectively). The AOS scheme primary assessment general kappa value for all types of injuries and across all raters was 0.49, reaching substantial agreement among experts (κ = 0.62) with moderate agreement across beginner and intermediate groups (κ = 0.48 and κ = 0.44, respectively). The second assessment general agreement kappa value reached 0.56. CONCLUSIONS: We found the highest values of interobserver agreement and reproducibility among surgeons with different levels of experience with Argenson and AOSpine classifications. The AOSpine scale additionally incorporated more detailed description of compression injuries and facet-joint fractures. Agreement levels reached for Allen-Fergusson and Harris scales were fair and moderate, respectively, indicating difficulty of their application in clinical practice, especially by junior specialists.
