Accuracy of self-reported severity and level of spinal cord injury

STUDY DESIGN: Observational. OBJECTIVES: To assess accuracy of self-reported level of injury (LOI) and severity in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) as compared with clinical examination. SETTING: An SCI Model System Hospital. METHODS: A 20-item survey evaluated demographics, physical abilities, and self-reported injury level and severity. A decision tree algorithm used responses to categorize participants into injury severity groups. Following the survey, participants underwent clinical examination to determine current injury level and severity. Participants were later asked three questions regarding S1 sparing. Chart abstraction was utilized to obtain initial injury level and severity. Injury level and severity from self-report, decision tree, clinical exam, and chart abstraction were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-eight individuals participated. Ninety-three percent correctly self-reported anatomical region of injury (ROI). Self-report of specific LOI matched current clinical LOI for 25% of participants, but matched initial LOI for 61%. Self-report of ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) matched clinical AIS for 36%, but matched initial AIS for 46%. The injury severity decision tree was 75% accurate without, but 79% accurate with additional S1 questions. Self-report of deep anal pressure (DAP) was correct for 86% of participants, while self-report of voluntary anal contraction (VAC) was correct for 82%. CONCLUSION: Individuals with SCI are more accurate reporting ROI than specific LOI. Self-reported injury level and severity align more closely with initial clinical examination results than current exam results. Using aggregate data from multiple questions can categorize injury severity more reliably than self-report. Using this type of decision tree may improve injury severity classification in large survey studies.