Abstract
The need to determine the beneficial effect of the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI) requires clearly defined standardized measures of the severity of injury and how well the function is restored. Improved neurological recovery should be linked to increased capacity to perform tasks such as walking, reaching and grasping, which results in meaningful gains in mobility and self-care. Measurements of recovery, capacity, mobility and self-care are the outcomes used to determine the benefits from the treatment and have evolved over the last century with contributions by the mentors and protégés of Sir Ludwig Guttmann, whom we honor today. Randomized clinical trials in the past 20 years have taught us many lessons as to which outcome measures have the greatest validity and reliability. The International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI have become the clinical gold standard for measurement of severity, but would benefit from pathophysiological surrogates to better understand the mechanisms of recovery. Measurements of walking capacity have emerged as valid/reliable/responsive and upper extremity measures are in development, which help distinguish neurological improvement from rehabilitation adaptation. Performance of self-care and mobility has been linked to capacity and severity outcomes. In addition, new partnerships between clinical trial entities, professional societies, industry and federal agencies should facilitate identification of priorities and uniformity of measurement standards. Our ultimate goal is to improve the quality of life of those individuals with SCI whom we serve, but we must focus our investigative efforts carefully, systematically and rigorously as clinical scientists.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The scope of this paper is to review the evolution of outcome measures used to document neurological and functional improvement of acute interventions for spinal cord injury (SCI) used in clinical trials. It will first encompass several important historical contributions of measures that determine the severity of neurological injury after spinal cord injury, such as the manual muscle test, sensory dermatomes and Frankel Grades. These early tests served as building blocks for the development of the International Standards for Neurological and Functional Classification of SCI (1990), which have become the current ‘gold standard’1 applied to various phases of a trial. Second, we need to appreciate the linkage of the severity of SCI to the domains of function, and the evolution of impairment, disability and handicap of 19802 to the current classification of function,3 which encompasses body function/structure, activity and participation. Third, we will examine how these outcome measures have evolved in clinical trials over the past two decades and have currently emerged with linkage of body structure to capacity and performance domains. Finally, we will need to project future evolution of measures that connect each domain of recovery, from the severity of injury to the fullest participation in society of the person with SCI.
Historical development
The International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI represents a composite of various measures to determine the severity of neurological impairment, which have evolved over the past nine decades and have been reviewed in detail on the occasion of their approval by the International Spinal Cord Society (ISCOS) in 1992.4 They include the motor score, based on the manual muscle test of 10 key muscles on each side of the body, and the sensory score for pin prick and the light touch summed from 28 dermatomes for each side. The key muscle and sensory points that are used to determine the neurological levels, together with the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) modified from the Frankel Grades, define the severity of the injury based on the extent of damage to the spinal cord and the completeness of injury.
The manual muscle test, first developed by Lovett in 19125 and refined by the Medical Research Council in 1943,6 and sensory dermatomes developed initially by Head and Campbell7 and later by Foerster in more detail,8 represent the oldest measures of neurological impairment before their incorporation, modification and application into the ASIA Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI introduced in 1982.9 The ASIA Standards, however, were in part a response to several publications in 1969. Michaelis10 made a plea for a more uniform classification of level, as reference to cervical five (C5) level could pertain to either the level of bony fracture or neurological damage. This led to a definition of severity based on the neurological site of the injury, such as C5 or T10. In the same year, Frankel introduced a system of grading (A through E) the completeness of injury to illustrate the benefit of postural reduction.11 Although some measures approach a century in origin, it is important for the next generation of clinical investigators to appreciate how the past has shaped our current concepts so that they may project their future role in SCI care and cure. This appreciation may be reflected by the following recognition of the founder of our society.
Sir Ludwig Guttmann, whom we honor today, is connected to several sources of the ISCOS International Neurological Standards, which we have just described. The first source relates to the sensory key points used to identify the sensory levels of an SCI in the extremities and both the sensory and motor levels of the trunk. Foerster8, the mentor to Sir Ludwig in Breslau and the foremost neurosurgeon in Europe12 during the early part of the 20th century, published ‘the dermatomes of man’ in 1933, which represented the culmination of over 20 years of detailed observation and testing. During most of this period, Sir Ludwig worked with Foerster13 (Figure 1a), who is credited as the primary source of the dermatome chart that we use daily in our examinations from the classic textbook by Haymaker and Woodhall.14 We use this method to determine the extent of the damage to the spinal cord or the neurological level (Figures 2a and b). The second link is through Sir Ludwig's student and protégé, Hans Frankel, who created the Frankel Grades in a publication11 to honor Sir Ludwig on the occasion of his 70th birthday (Figure 1b). The Frankel Grades, which are the forerunner of the ASIA Impairment Scale, are the most frequently cited outcome measure in the literature (Figure 3), which determine the completeness of the injury. Frankel, who used the word ‘function’ for Grade D (3/5 muscle strength or greater), implied the concept of walking function, which linked it to the severity of the injury, a linkage that we will explore further under domains.
It is fitting, therefore, to recall and recognize Sir Ludwig's relationship to today's topic through both his mentor, Foerster, and his protégé, Frankel, over a span of three generations. Sir Ludwig embraced Foerster's approach of research and treatment based on neurophysiology, whether it was applied to rehabilitation or surgery, and this legacy was transmitted by Sir Ludwig Guttmann to his professional progeny. Therefore, practical clinical research became an integral part of the care of persons with SCI, and our today's topic of outcome measures applied to clinical trials represents this tradition by the founder of our society.
Evolution of domains of function
The primary purpose of the ASIA Neurological Standards of 1982 was to reach an agreement on a clinical classification of SCI severity. The addition of a disability measure (1992–2002) to severity classification with standardization for use as outcome measures in research came later with adoption/endorsement by ISCOS.4, 15, 16 To appreciate the use of severity/disability outcomes in research, however, we need to understand the evolution of domains of function over this time period. Domains are a method of conceptualizing the interaction of the severity of injury in SCI (impairment) with the impact on the person as an individual (disability) and in society. The evolution of the concepts of disability over the past 30 years has been recently summarized17 (Table 1).
The first effort to link impairment to the disability domain was conceptualized by Nagi,18 when he introduced the domain of functional limitation. This required, for example, a limited physical action such as inability to grasp a cylinder as the link to explain the inability to grasp a glass to drink (disability) owing to finger weakness (impairment). Functional limitation, however, was not incorporated into the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of impairment, disability and handicap.2 The WHO classification of 1980 indicated that impairment, such as finger weakness, resulted in disabilities such as limited feeding. Therefore, the WHO classification eliminated the link of a functional limitation domain between impairment and disability. Functional limitation was restored in a series of modifications of domains of disability by the Institute of Medicine19, 20 (1991, 1997) and by the National Institute of Health21 (1992) with the introduction of the societal and environmental impact on impairment/disability as a continuum. One proponent22 emphasized that an action such as reaching by the arm and/or grasping an object with the hand was needed to link muscle strength measures of the upper extremity to self-care measures such as feeding and grooming. This is because improvement in feeding (disability) can be achieved by the use of an adaptive device alone, with no change in finger strength, and would be misleading in a trial to improve strength and function.
In 2001, the WHO proposed an entirely new classification, the International Classification of Function, which eliminated most of the negative connotations of the 1980 classification. Disease/pathology became a health condition, impairment changed to body structure/function, and self-care/mobility was collapsed into activities, but functional limitation was again eliminated (Figures 4a and b). Although this offered many needed changes to the 1980 classification, such as elimination of the word handicap, it needs clarification particularly in the activity domain.17, 22 In this domain, it is difficult to distinguish between functional limitations, capacity, activities, self-care/mobility and performance, as there is considerable overlap. It appears that these different activities are often all lumped under ‘functioning’ in the new classification termed as International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.3
This confusion over the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health terminology of domains is further illustrated in tests of hand function, which have been introduced for use as outcome measures in recent publications. Each author has attempted to apply the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health model with different terms, such as ‘capability,’22 ‘basic activity’23 and ‘capacity’,24 for linkage between body function and performance. Two of the authors (Marino and Post) make reference to their measures as related to the former domain of functional limitation. This strongly suggests the need for an effort by ASIA/ISCOS and/or the Spinal Cord Outcomes Partnership Endeavor (SCOPE) to clarify the terminology for use in all SCI clinical trials.
Evolution of outcome measures in randomized multicenter clinical trials: lessons learned
Although the four major randomized multicenter clinical trials (RMCT) in SCI did not show significant functional improvement, it has been stated ‘even failure of a treatment to restore significant function would be informative if the discrepancies between laboratory and clinical results could be reconciled…’.25 Information on use of outcome measures or lessons learned may also be gained from ‘failed trials’ (Table 2). In Figure 5 ‘Time Line’, the evolution of trials over the past 25–30 years is listed by both the time the study was initiated and the time it was reported, as the initiation date reflects when the outcome measure was chosen and the publication date reports on the results. This listing is not inclusive of all trials and Tator's26 review is more comprehensive. These four trials were chosen because of the author's familiarity and their illustrative value.
The modern era of RMCT in SCI opened with a clarion call of the first major advance in treatment, published as the lead article in NEJM, May 1990. This study on the effect of high-dose methylprednisolone on improving outcomes in acute SCI was the first large RMCT conducted by the National Acute SCI Study (NASCIS) group funded by the National Institutes of Health. It claimed27 an improvement of almost 10 motor points on one side with a significant improvement in sensation. This RMCT of 333 subjects was followed up 1 year later28 by another lead article in the New Eng J Med, which reported on a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study of only 34 subjects treated with GM-1 ganglioside. The improvement in motor score was 15 points for both sides in this study and ‘a significant … improvement of Frankel grades from base line to the one-year follow-up.’28
There was criticism of both studies: the methylprednisolone study, because an improvement of 10 motor points was not equated with improved function,29 and the ganglioside-GM-1 pilot study of only 34 subjects, which did not randomize into equal groups.29 The improvement in AIS/Frankel Grades in the ganglioside trial, however, encouraged the designers of the subsequent trial of 760 subjects to choose a modification of the AIS/Frankel Grades as its primary end point.30 Irrespective of the past and current criticism,31 the NASCIS 2 trial was a well-designed RMCT and set the standard for trials of future interventions for SCI. The criticism of the failure to equate improvement of strength with function led to the addition of a functional measure of improvement with a disability scale, the functional independence measure (FIM), which had been validated in the rehabilitation literature in 1987.32 This was the only validated measure of disability at the time and was used as a secondary end point for the NASCIS 3 trial begun in December 1992.33 The report of the NASCIS 2 study also helped to stimulate the development of a consensus between members of the NASCIS group, ASIA and ISCOS, which produced the International Standards for the Neurological and Functional Classification of SCI in 1992 (ISNFCSCI).34 This included the modified Frankel Grades (AIS), motor and sensory scores, neurological levels and FIM.
The International Standards gained immediate acceptance35 and the neurological items were incorporated into the beginning of the second very large MRCT ganglioside trial initiated in 1992. This trial chose a more robust end point, the Benzel Scale36 as the primary outcome measure, which was a combination of the Frankel Grades with an expanded Grade D with three levels of walking added. Although this new measure (Benzel Scale) was not validated by current psychometric methods, it attempted to integrate an impairment scale with a functional measure of walking, which had been suggested by others37 and implied by Frankel in his definition of Grade D as functional strength. This need for a measure, which would link the weakness of the lower extremities to locomotion function, led to the development of the Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury in 200038 and the application of walking speed as a primary end point in the locomotor training trial initiated a year earlier.39 The ganglioside trial, the largest to date (760 subjects), also provided an invaluable database, which has provided the opportunity for critical examination of recovery patterns based on AIS, motor and sensory scores.40, 41
This effort to link improvement of neurological function, such as strength in the legs, to mobility continues to be a challenge in clinical trials for several reasons. As phase 1 clinical trials must consider the primary end point as safety, the severity of SCI is typically a complete lesion, in which lower extremity recovery is limited. This requires a robust gain of neurological recovery to produce major improvements in mobility. In fact, the recent report by the International Campaign for Cures of Spinal Cord Injury Paralysis (ICCP) panel on outcomes42 advised caution regarding the use of the ASIA Impairment Scale as a primary end point in phase one studies, because it might demand too robust an improvement. In addition, there did not seem to be a current fully validated performance scale (formerly disability measure) for practical use as a primary end point in subjects with complete SCI,42 although several well validated functional capacity scales for walking, such as the 10-meter walking speed test and the walking index for spinal cord injury (WISCI), had emerged for use in studies of incomplete SCI. The spinal cord independence measure, developed as a disability scale in 1997,43 has been recently validated44 and claims to be superior to FIM for several reasons. It was developed specifically for SCI lesions and was shown to be more precise. However, there are some limitations to linking improvement in body structure to a global performance scale, as improvement in spinal cord independence measure scores is possible with no improvement in AIS grades or walking capacity45 (Figure 6). Improvement in mobility can be seen as a result of training alone, as a person with a complete transection of the thoracic spinal cord, who remains completely paralyzed in the legs, but with normal arms, is capable of improvement from being dependent in bed to complete independence in mobility, by wheelchair locomotion.
Although the Federal Drug Administration in the United States has no official position, at a recent meeting in Washington, DC, in which they participated with clinical investigators, as well as with members of the drug industry and other federal agencies, use of functional capacity measures linked to clinical meaningful improvement seemed to be a desired primary end point for use in a clinical trial rather than an improvement in body structure alone. (J Steeves: personal communication).
Emerging capacity/capability scales linked to domains of body structure and performance
The recent study46 of locomotor training in persons with incomplete SCI was able to show improvement in walking function with several measures, which included functional capacity and performance (disability) measures that correlated with increase in strength of the legs. Although this study failed to show a significant difference between the treatment and control arms, it did show improvement of walking as a result of more intense training compared with historical controls. Persons with incomplete SCI with AIS grade C or D at enrollment within 56 days of injury showed an improvement in walking with less physical assistance as determined by the locomotor FIM and/or walking speed, the two primary end points. Secondary end points such as the Walking Index for SCI and the 6 min walk, a measure of endurance, all correlated with an increase in the strength of the legs.47 Similarly, walking speed based on 10-meter walking test has shown a high correlation with other timed tests and a good correlation of WISCI48 in motor recovery after SCI, which led to a recommendation by several groups that these were the best validated scales for measures of walking capacity in SCI clinical trials.42, 49 The improvement in lower extremity motor scores at baseline explained most of the variance in improvement in WISCI, thus linking body structure with walking capacity, and together these measures correlated with the subtest of FIM for walking function. A recent European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI) database publication has revealed the linkage of improvement in AIS grades (body structure) with 10-meter walking test and WISCI (capacity measures) in an effort to validate the performance domain of indoor walking assessed by the spinal cord independence measure50 (Figure 7a).
Although improvement in upper extremity function in an acute rehabilitation setting was emphasized by the introduction of the Quadriplegic Index of Function,51 this was a measure of self-care and included the use of special devices and physical assistance. There is a 40-year experience in the measurement of hand function52 by rehabilitation professionals, surgeons and engineers53 concerned with tendon transfers and functional electrical stimulation restoration of arm/hand function in individuals with cervical SCI. Few studies, however, combined functional assessment of grasp and reach until recently.54 The capabilities of the upper extremity has been reported in the past 10 years to be valid as a questionnaire,54 and together with the Van Lieshout test23 and components of another hand test (graded redefined assessment of strength, sensibility, and prehension),24 illustrate efforts to link improvement in strength of the arms with improvement in self-care by a standardized measure of capability/basic activity/capacity (formerly functional limitation). These recent efforts recognize that an improvement in performance (self-care) alone may be solely due to training with adaptive devices without a significant increase in motor score (body structure). Therefore, capability or capacity measures need to show linkage between body structure and self-care (Figure 7b).
There is a subtle difference between a capability and capacity measure in that assistance and specific self-care activities are never permitted in a capability measure. However, whether the link between body function and performance is shown either a capability or capacity measure, standardized rigorous assessments of function are essential and must be independent of environmental/societal adaptations. Examples of these linkages have been illustrated in several recent studies of walking function47, 50 and upper extremity function.24
The future
Each measure, whether body function, capacity or performance, has limitations. Greater precision in the measure of body function has been elusive. Although neurophysiological measures of body function/structure have not shown promise in some acute studies,45 they may have value in persons with chronic SCI.55 Quantitative sensory56, 57 and motor testing procedures also offer promise of greater precision. Recent advances in neuroimaging of SCI hold promise for development of anatomical/physiological surrogates of the severity of injury for use in clinical trials. The dramatic visual interruption of white matter tracts and glial scar shown by spinal cord diffusion tensor imaging58 may enable us to monitor recovery patterns in the future. diffusion tensor imaging has also shown quantitative changes based on the severity of SCI,59 which have been correlated with the ASIA Impairment Grades.60
Although WISCI and 10-meter walking test are recommended42, 49 as the best-validated measures of walking capacity today, this does not mean that they will be so tomorrow, as we learned from FIM in 1997 (Table 2). As we apply these measures in future trials, we need to validate their responsiveness and evidence of improvement that has clinical significance. The measure of minimal clinically important difference has gained interest and was originally defined as ‘the smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which patient's perceive as beneficial.’61 Both the consumer's and clinician's perspective on what constitutes a meaningful change are valuable; however, their views do not always agree.62 Ultimately, increased participation in society63 and improvement in quality of life64 should be shown. However, factors other than repair of neurological injury may contribute to these gains and will not be covered in this review.
Finally, the linkage of body function, capacity and performance should be known before entering a phase 3 trial, especially if all measures are to be included in the primary outcome measure. It is possible to consider the use of multiple primary end points or a global statistical test.65 These issues need to be examined on a regular basis and we must encourage and applaud the combined efforts by ASIA/ISCOS and SCOPE to update outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
In summary, Foerster's dermatome map, Frankel grades and the manual muscle test helped to classify the severity of SCI with the development of International Standards. This classification of impairment, later modified for research purposes, was linked to self-care/mobility through rigorous standardized measures of capacity/capability. Such linkages are essential as outcome measures for clinical trials of neurological restoration, but require clarification by SCI investigators. Their role has been refined by use in clinical trials with many lessons learned as to their strengths and limitations. These lessons should provide the framework for advancing the development of measures to better quantify the pathophysiology of severity and the minimal clinical significance of restored capacity and capability of function.
References
Ragnarsson KT, Wuermser LA, Cardenas DD, Marino RJ . Spinal cord injury clinical trials for neurologic restoration: improving care through clinical research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 84: S77–S97.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disability and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1980.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.
Ditunno Jr JF . American spinal injury standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury: past, present and future. 1992 Heiner Sell Lecture of the American Spinal Injury Association. J Am Paraplegia Soc 1994; 17: 7–11.
Florence JM, Pandya S, King WM, Robinson JD, Baty J, Miller JP et al. Intrarater reliability of manual muscle test (Medical Research Council scale) grades in Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. Phys Ther 1992; 72: 115–122.
Medical Research Council War Memorandum. Aids to the Evaluation of Peripheral Nerve Injuries. 2nd edn. Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, 1943, 11–14.
Head H, Campbell AW . The pathology of herpes zoster and its bearing on sensory localization. Brain 1900; 23: 353–523.
Foerster O . The dermatomes in man. Brain 1933; 56: 1–39.
American Spinal Injury Association. Standards for Classification of Spinal Injured Patients. American Spinal Injury Association: Chicago, 1982.
Michaelis LS . International inquiry on neurological terminology and prognosis in paraplegia and tetraplegia. Paraplegia 1969; 7: 1–5.
Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G, Melzak J, Michaelis LS, Ungar GH et al. The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. Paraplegia 1969; 7: 179–192.
Piotrowska N, Winkler PA . Otfrid Foerster, the great neurologist and neurosurgeon from Breslau (Wroclaw): his influence on early neurosurgeons and legacy to present-day neurosurgery. J Neurosurg 2007; 107: 451–456.
Goodman S . Spirit of Stoke Mandeville: The Story of Sir Ludwig Guttmann. Harper Collins: London, 1986.
Haymaker W, Woodhall B . Peripheral Nerve Inuries: Principles of Diagnosis, 2nd edn. Thieme, American Association of Neurological Surgeons: New York, 2005.
Marino RJ, Barros T, Biering-Sorensen F, Burns SP, Donovan WH, Graves DE et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 2003; 26 (Suppl 1): S50–S56.
Maynard Jr FM, Bracken MB, Creasey G, Ditunno Jr JF, Donovan WH, Ducker TB et al. International standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury. American Spinal Injury Association. Spinal Cord 1997; 35: 266–274.
Whiteneck GG . Conceptual models of disability: past, present, and future. In: Field M, Jette A, Martin L (eds). Workshop on Disability in America: A New Look—Summary and Background Papers, 2006. The National Academy Press: The National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, 2006, pp 50–66.
Nagi SZ . An epidemiology of disability among adults in the United States. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc 1976; 54: 439–467.
Pope A, Tarlov A . Disability in America: Toward a National Agenda for Prevention. Naional Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1991.
Institute of Medicine. Functional limitations research in rehabilitation science and engineering. In: Brandt EN, Pope AM (eds). Enabling America: Assessing the Role of Rehabilitation Science and Engineering. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1997. pp 100–146.
National Institutes of Health. Research Plan for the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. NIH Publication 93–3509 ed. US. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, 1993.
Marino RJ . Domains of outcomes in spinal cord injury for clinical trials to improve neurological function. J Rehabil Res Dev 2007; 44: 113–122.
Post MW, Van LG, Seelen HA, Snoek GJ, Ijzerman MJ, Pons C . Measurement properties of the short version of the Van Lieshout test for arm/hand function of persons with tetraplegia after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2006; 44: 763–771.
Rudhe C, van Hedel HJ . Upper extremity function in persons with tetraplegia: relationships between strength, capacity, and the spinal cord independence measure. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 413–421.
Kleitman N . Keeping promises: translating basic research into new spinal cord injury therapies. J Spinal Cord Med 2004; 27: 311–318.
Tator CH . Review of treatment trials in human spinal cord injury: issues, difficulties, and recommendations. Neurosurgery 2006; 59: 957–982.
Bracken MB, Shepard MJ, Collins WF, Holford TR, Young W, Baskin DS et al. A randomized, controlled trial of methylprednisolone or naloxone in the treatment of acute spinal-cord injury. Results of the Second National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study [see comments]. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 1405–1411.
Geisler FH, Dorsey FC, Coleman WP . Recovery of motor function after spinal-cord injury--a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with GM-1 ganglioside. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1829–1838.
Walker MD . Acute spinal-cord injury. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1885–1887.
Geisler FH, Coleman WP, Grieco G, Poonian D . Measurements and recovery patterns in a multicenter study of acute spinal cord injury. Spine 2001; 26: S68–S86.
Geisler FH . Moving beyond depression: excessively closed science hurts. BMJ 2008; 336: 629.
Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tashman JS . A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer M (ed). Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and Measurement. Brookes: Baltimore, 1987, pp 137–147.
Bracken MB, Shepard MJ, Holford TR, Leo-Summers L, Aldrich EF, Fazl M et al. Administration of methylprednisolone for 24 or 48 h or tirilazad mesylate for 48 h in the treatment of acute spinal cord injury. Results of the Third National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Randomized Controlled Trial. National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study. JAMA 1997; 277: 1597–1604.
Ditunno Jr JF, Young W, Donovan WH, Creasey G . The international standards booklet for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury. American Spinal Injury Association. Paraplegia 1994; 32: 70–80.
Harris P . Editorial: The International Standards Booklet for Neurological and Functional Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. Paraplegia 1994; 32: 69.
Benzel EC, Larson SJ . Functional recovery after decompressive spine operation for cervical spine fractures. Neurosurgery 1987; 20: 742–746.
Maynard FM, Reynolds GG, Fountain S, Wilmot C, Hamilton R . Neurological prognosis after traumatic quadriplegia. Three-year experience of California Regional Spinal Cord Injury Care System. J Neurosurg 1979; 50: 611–616.
Ditunno JF, Ditunno PL, Graziani V, Scivoletto G, Bernardi M, Castellano V et al. Walking index for spinal cord injury (WISCI): an international multicenter validity and reliability study. Spinal Cord 2000; 38: 234–243.
Dobkin BH, Apple D, Barbeau H, Basso M, Behrman A, Deforge D et al. Methods for a randomized trial of weight-supported treadmill training versus conventional training for walking during inpatient rehabilitation after incomplete traumatic spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003; 17: 153–167.
Fawcett JW, Curt A, Steeves JD, Coleman WP, Tuszynski MH, Lammertse D et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials. Spinal Cord 2007; 45: 190–205.
Oleson CV, Burns AS, Ditunno JF, Geisler FH, Coleman WP . Prognostic value of pinprick preservation in motor complete, sensory incomplete spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 988–992.
Steeves JD, Lammertse D, Curt A, Fawcett JW, Tuszynski MH, Ditunno JF et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury (SCI) as developed by the ICCP panel: clinical trial outcome measures. Spinal Cord 2007; 45: 206–221.
Catz A, Itzkovich M, Agranov E, Ring H, Tamir A . Scim—spinal cord independence measure—a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 1997; 35: 850–856.
Catz A, Itzkovich M, Tesio L, Biering-Sorensen F, Weeks C, Laramee MT et al. A multicenter international study on the Spinal Cord Independence Measure, version III: Rasch psychometric validation. Spinal Cord 2006; 45: 275–291.
Curt A, van Hedel HJ, Klaus D, Dietz V . Recovery from a spinal cord injury: significance of compensation, neural plasticity, and repair. J Neurotrauma 2008; 25: 677–685.
Dobkin B, Apple D, Barbeau H, Basso M, Behrman A, Deforge D et al. Weight-supported treadmill vs over-ground training for walking after acute incomplete SCI. Neurology 2006; 66: 484–493.
Ditunno Jr JF, Barbeau H, Dobkin BH, Elashoff R, Harkema S, Marino RJ et al. Validity of the walking scale for spinal cord injury and other domains of function in a multicenter clinical trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 539–550.
van Hedel HJ, Wirz M, Dietz V . Assessing walking ability in subjects with spinal cord injury: validity and reliability of 3 walking tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 190–196.
Alexander MS, Anderson KD, Biering-Sorensen F, Blight AR, Brannon R, Bryce TN et al. Outcome measures in spinal cord injury: recent assessments and recommendations for future directions. Spinal Cord 2009; 47: 582–591.
van Hedel HJ, Dietz V . Walking during daily life can be validly and responsively assessed in subjects with a spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 117–124.
Gresham GE, Labi ML, Dittmar SS, Hicks JT, Joyce SZ, Stehlik MA . The Quadriplegia Index of Function (QIF): sensitivity and reliability demonstrated in a study of thirty quadriplegic patients. Paraplegia 1986; 24: 38–44.
Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA . An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1969; 50: 311–319.
Wuolle KS, Van Doren CL, Thrope GB, Keith MW, Peckham PH . Development of a quantitative hand grasp and release test for patients with tetraplegia using a hand neuroprosthesis. J Hand Surg Am 1994; 19: 209–218.
Marino RJ, Shea JA, Stineman MG . The Capabilities of Upper Extremity instrument: reliability and validity of a measure of functional limitation in tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 1512–1521.
Ellaway PH, Catley M, Davey NJ, Kuppuswamy A, Strutton P, Frankel HL et al. Review of physiological motor outcome measures in spinal cord injury using transcranial magnetic stimulation and spinal reflexes. J Rehabil Res Dev 2007; 44: 69–76.
King NK, Savic G, Frankel H, Jamous A, Ellaway P . Reliability of cutaneous electrical perceptual threshold in the assessment of sensory perception in patients with spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 2009; 26: 1061–1068.
Savic G, Bergström EMK, Davey NJ, Ellaway PH, Frankel HL, Jamous MA, Nicotra A . Quantitative sensory tests (perceptual thresholds) in patients with spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Res Dev 2007; 44: 77–82.
Schwartz ED, Flanders AE . Spinal trauma : imaging, diagnosis, and management. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007.
Shanmuganathan K, Gullapalli RP, Zhuo J, Mirvis SE . Diffusion tensor MR imaging in cervical spine trauma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008; 29: 655–659.
Mathews J, Dresner MA, Techavipoo U, Schwartz ED, Marino RJ, Harrop J, Flanders AE . Mapping Human Spinal Cord Injury with Diffusion Tensor Imaging. Proceedings of the American Society of Neuroradiology. 47th Annual Meeting, 2009.
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH . Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407–415.
Ditunno PL, Patrick M, Stineman M, Ditunno JF . Who wants to walk? Preferences for recovery after SCI: a longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Spinal Cord 2008; 46: 500–506.
Weitzenkamp DA, Whiteneck GG, Lammertse DP . Predictors of personal care assistance for people with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1399–1405.
Dijkers MP . Quality of life of individuals with spinal cord injury: a review of conceptualization, measurement, and research findings. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42: 87–110.
Tilley BC, Marler J, Geller NL, Lu M, Legler J, Brott T et al. Use of a global test for multiple outcomes in stroke trials with application to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke t-PA Stroke Trial. Stroke 1996; 27: 2136–2142.
Curt A, Schwab ME, Dietz V . Providing the clinical basis for new interventional therapies: refined diagnosis and assessment of recovery after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2004; 42: 1–6.
Dietz V, Schwab ME, Curt A . The EMSI Assessment Scheme. European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI). http://www.emsci.org/ (7–9–2009).
Grossman R . North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) for Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury. http://clinicaltrials.gov (2009).
Marino RJ, Graves DE . Metric properties of the ASIA motor score: subscales improve correlation with functional activities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 1804–1810.
Alexander MS, Biering-Sorensen F, Bodner D, Brackett NL, Cardenas D, Charlifue S et al. International standards to document remaining autonomic function after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2009; 47: 36–43.
Acknowledgements
I thank V Durkalski, PhD, J Eng, PhD, M Patrick, RN, G Savic, MD, G Scivoletto, MD, J Steeves, PhD, G Whiteneck, PhD, and the library staff at Thomas Jefferson University for their review, constructive comments and assistance in the preparation of this paper. The studies reported in this paper were supported, in part, by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), U.S. Department of Education, Washington DC, USA (Grant no. H133N-000023) and previous grants for the development of ISCOS Standards and WISCI.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Additional information
The Sir Ludwig Guttman Lecture, 48th International Spinal Cord Society Annual Scientific Meeting, Florence, Italy, 21–24 October 2009.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ditunno, J. Outcome measures: evolution in clinical trials of neurological/functional recovery in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 48, 674–684 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2009.198
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2009.198
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Arm hand skilled performance in persons with a cervical spinal cord injury—long-term follow-up
Spinal Cord (2013)
-
The translational dialogue in spinal cord injury research
Spinal Cord (2012)
-
Extent of spontaneous motor recovery after traumatic cervical sensorimotor complete spinal cord injury
Spinal Cord (2011)
-
Consumer preference in ranking walking function utilizing the walking index for spinal cord injury II
Spinal Cord (2011)