21 research outputs found

    Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system

    Immunosuppression reduction when administering a booster dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients without adequate humoral response following two vaccine doses: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (BECAME study)

    No full text
    INTRODUCTION: Inadequate antibody response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has been described among kidney transplant recipients. Immunosuppression level and specifically, use of antimetabolite in the maintenance immunosuppressive regimen, are associated with inadequate response. In light of the severe consequences of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients, we believe it is justified to examine new vaccination strategies in these patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BECAME is a single-centre, open-label, investigator-initiated randomised controlled, superiority trial, aiming to compare immunosuppression reduction combined with a third BNT162b2 vaccine dose versus third dose alone. The primary outcome will be seropositivity rate against SARS-CoV-2. A sample size of 154 patients was calculated for the seropositivity endpoint assuming 25% seropositivity in the control group and 50% in the intervention group. A sample of participants per arm will be also tested for T-cell response. We also plan to perform a prospective observational study, evaluating seropositivity among ~350 kidney transplant recipients consenting to receive a third vaccine dose, who are not eligible for the randomised controlled trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by local ethics committee of Rabin Medical Center (RMC-0192-21). All participants will be required to provide written informed consent. Results of this trial will be published; trial data will be available. Protocol amendments will be submitted to the local ethics committee
    corecore