↓ Skip to main content

Reliability assessment of AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system and Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) for thoracolumbar spine injuries: results of a…

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Reliability assessment of AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system and Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) for thoracolumbar spine injuries: results of a multicentre study
Published in
European Spine Journal, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4663-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rahul Kaul, Harvinder Singh Chhabra, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Rainer Abel, Sagun Tuli, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, Kali Dutta Das, Bibhudendu Mohapatra, Ankur Nanda, Gururaj M. Sangondimath, Murari Lal Bansal, Nishit Patel

Abstract

The aim of this multicentre study was to determine whether the recently introduced AOSpine Classification and Injury Severity System has better interrater and intrarater reliability than the already existing Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) for thoracolumbar spine injuries. Clinical and radiological data of 50 consecutive patients admitted at a single centre with a diagnosis of an acute traumatic thoracolumbar spine injury were distributed to eleven attending spine surgeons from six different institutions in the form of PowerPoint presentation, who classified them according to both classifications. After time span of 6 weeks, cases were randomly rearranged and sent again to same surgeons for re-classification. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability for each component of TLICS and new AOSpine classification were evaluated using Fleiss Kappa coefficient (k value) and Spearman rank order correlation. Moderate interrater and intrarater reliability was seen for grading fracture type and integrity of posterior ligamentous complex (Fracture type: k = 0.43 ± 0.01 and 0.59 ± 0.16, respectively, PLC: k = 0.47 ± 0.01 and 0.55 ± 0.15, respectively), and fair to moderate reliability (k = 0.29 ± 0.01 interobserver and 0.44+/0.10 intraobserver, respectively) for total score according to TLICS. Moderate interrater (k = 0.59 ± 0.01) and substantial intrarater reliability (k = 0.68 ± 0.13) was seen for grading fracture type regardless of subtype according to AOSpine classification. Near perfect interrater and intrarater agreement was seen concerning neurological status for both the classification systems. Recently proposed AOSpine classification has better reliability for identifying fracture morphology than the existing TLICS. Additional studies are clearly necessary concerning the application of these classification systems across multiple physicians at different level of training and trauma centers to evaluate not only their reliability and reproducibility, but also the other attributes, especially the clinical significance of a good classification system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Master 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 19 26%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Chemistry 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,474,769
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#1,598
of 4,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,887
of 352,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#16
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.