Assessment of variability in motor grading and patient-reported outcome reporting: a multi-specialty, multi-national survey.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this survey-based study was to evaluate the current practice patterns of clinicians who assess patients with peripheral nerve pathologies and to assess variance in motor grading on the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale using example case vignettes. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to clinicians who regularly assess patients with peripheral nerve pathology. Survey sections included (1) demographic data, (2) vignettes where respondents were asked to assess on the MRC scale, and (3) assessment of practice patterns regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures. Inter-rater reliability statistics were calculated for the application of the MRC scale on example vignettes. RESULTS: There were 109 respondents. There was significant dispersion in motor grading seen on the example vignettes. For the raw responses grading the example vignettes on the MRC scale, Krippendorff's alpha was 0.788 (95% CI 0.604, 0.991); Gwet's AC2 was 0.808 (95% CI 0.683, 0.932); Fleiss' kappa was 0.416 (95% CI 0.413, 0.419). Most respondents reported not utilizing any patient-reported outcome measures across peripheral nerve pathologies. DISCUSSION: Our data show that there is significant disagreement among providers when applying the MRC scale. It is important for us to reassess our current tools for patient evaluation in order to improve upon both clinical evaluation and outcomes reporting. Consensus guidelines for outcomes reporting are needed, and domains outside of manual muscle testing should be included.

Duke Scholars

Author Brandon Wayne Smith Neurosurgery