4.3 Article

Standardization of data analysis and reporting of results from the International Spinal Cord Injury Core Data Set

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 49, 期 5, 页码 596-599

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2010.172

关键词

spinal cord injury; standardization; epidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The objective of this study was to provide guidelines for reporting results using the International Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Core Data Set. Setting: International. Methods: A committee was created on request of the chair of the Executive Committee for the International SCI Data Set committees. The committee developed a draft consisting of set of recommendations, which were then reviewed and approved by the entire Executive Committee. Results: Age at injury is recommended as reported by the mean, s.d., median and range. When grouped, 15-year increments are recommended as follows: 0-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61-75 and 76+ years. For pediatric SCI, 0-5, 6-12, 13-15, 16-21 years are recommended. Time since injury should be reported by mean, s.d., median and range. The following intervals are recommended: <1 year, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 years, and 5-year increments thereafter. Calendar time (years during which the study is conducted) is recommended grouped by either 5 or 10-year increments with years ending in 4 or 9. For 'length of stay', the mean and s.d., as well as the median is recommended for report. Severity of injury is under ordinary circumstances recommended, reported in five categories: C1-4 American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade (AIS) A, B or C; C5-8 AIS A, B or C; T1-S5 AIS A, B, or C; AIS D at any injury level; and ventilator dependent at any injury level or AIS grade. Conclusion: It is expected that these recommendations can facilitate a more uniform reporting of the very basic core data on SCI. This will facilitate comparison between different SCI studies. Spinal Cord (2011) 49, 596-599; doi: 10.1038/sc.2010.172; published online 7 December 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据