Search for a command to run...
Objective: To develop, theoretically substantiate, and perform primary validation of a multilevel (0–10 points) scale for quantitative assessment of the intensity of external mechanical impact in traumatic spinal injuries. Materials and methods: The study design followed the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) principles for developing and validating medical measurement tools, ensuring an adequate level of scientific validity and reproducibility. A literature review (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, 1990–2025) enabled the identification of threshold values and modifying factors, including patient body mass, the transmission coefficient of impulse (Tland))), and the effective deceleration distance (Sland). Two datasets were used for validation: 40 standardized clinical vignettes and 52 real cases of thoracolumbar junction trauma (Th11–L2) with mandatory verification by computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Construct and criterion validity, inter-rater reliability (ICC, κ), absolute reliability (SEM, MDC95), diagnostic accuracy (ROC analysis), agreement level (Bland–Altman), and threshold stability were assessed. Results: Based on comparative analysis of various approaches, the concept of “equivalent fall height” was proposed as a universal criterion of mechanical exposure in spinal trauma. An 11-level (0–10) quantitative scale and a spine-oriented derived metric were developed. Primary validation demonstrated high inter-rater agreement (ICC(2,1): 0.84 for the basic indicator and 0.79 for the spinal-oriented one; ICC(2,k): 0.95 and 0.92), acceptable absolute precision (SEM 0.80–0.95; MDC95 2.2–2.6 points), and stable thresholds (discrepancies exceeding ±1 level occurred in <7% of cases). The metrics showed significant associations with vertebral body wedge deformity (r=0.58), spinal canal compromise (r=0.49), and ordinal injury severity by AO Spine (ρ=0.62; p<0.001). In logistic modeling, each additional 1 m in equivalent fall height nearly doubled the odds of burst/unstable injuries (OR=1.85; 95% CI 1.45–2.38). The diagnostic performance of the scale was confirmed (AUC=0.82) for identifying vertebral fractures (optimal threshold ≈1.3 m; sensitivity – 0.76; specificity – 0.72). Conclusions: The proposed scale provides a quantitative, mass-neutral, and clinically interpretable measure of the “event severity,” complements morphological classifications, enhances risk stratification, and can be applied for patient triage, diagnostic planning, and multicenter research.