AzTrials
AzTrials

BurnsNCT06059183

The FAB Score Inter-rater Reliability Study

An observational study of Burns, run by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The Functional Assessment for Burns (FAB) score is an instrument developed by therapists at St Andrew's Burns Centre, Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust, where it is currently used as standard protocol to measure the physical functional recovery and independence of adult burn inpatients. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Burns
How many people
30 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
Feb 2024to Dec 2024
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: Male and female patients aged 18 years and over admitted to St Andrew's adult burns ward

Who may be able to join

  • Male and female adult patients admitted to St Andrew's burns ward with burn injuries
  • ≥18 years old

Who cannot join

  • Patients admitted with medical skin loss conditions
  • Unwilling to provide informed consent

Trial locations and contacts

No sites are listed yet.

Sarah Smailes, PhD contact

01245516005

sarah.smailes@nhs.net

Catherine Wharfe, MSc contact

wharfec@lsbu.ac.uk

About this study

Official title: Investigating the Inter-rater Reliability of the Functional Assessment for Burns (FAB) Score in Adult Burn Inpatients

The Functional Assessment for Burns (FAB) score is an instrument developed by therapists at St Andrew's Burns Centre, Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust, where it is currently used as standard protocol to measure the physical functional recovery and independence of adult burn inpatients.

The aim of this research is to test the ability of the FAB score to collect accurate data when used by three different therapists observing the same patient carrying out specific functional tasks (i.e. inter-rater reliability).

Read the detailed description

Study purpose:

Burn survivors face numerous physical challenges (e.g. reduced range of motion, upper/lower limb impairments, pain, swelling and itching) that affect activities of daily living (e.g. feeding, hygienic self-care, dressing, getting in/out of bed, walking and stair climbing). Assessment of physical function and independence, through valid and reliable instruments, is essential during inpatient rehabilitation of adult burn survivors in order to optimise their physical recovery and determine likely discharge outcomes. The FAB assessment is routinely carried out on patients at St Andrew's Burns Centre and the predictive validity of the FAB score has previously been tested in adult burn patients, however it has yet to be tested for inter-rater reliability. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to investigate the ability of the FAB score to collect accurate data, free from measurement error, when used by multiple raters observing the same clinical episode.

Study design:

A quantitative reliability study will be carried out. All patients admitted to adult inpatients at St Andrew's Burn Centre will be screened and recruited according to inclusion/exclusion criteria by the Chief Investigator. There will be no change to patients' routine care as it is standard protocol for patients admitted to the burns ward to receive a FAB assessment within 48h of admission (FAB 1), and 48h of discharge (FAB 2), with interim assessments performed as necessary to monitor patients' progress and aid in maintaining motivation. In order to avoid any risk of potentially causing patients distress from too many assessing therapists, a maximum of three clinicians will be selected from a convenience sample of the burns inpatient therapy team (n=12). For each episode, the most clinically senior of the three raters will conduct the FAB assessment. Each rater will score the patient individually and will be blinded to the other observers' results. If a patient requires the assistance of more than one physiotherapist/occupational therapist to complete a task, the clinician is permitted to report, "I am assisting/supervising/not assisting", but not state how this would be represented as a FAB score.

Data analysis:

Scores from each assessment episode will be imported into MedCalc statistical package. Calculation of the Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) will assess the agreement (and therefore the inter-rater reliability) of the results provided by the three therapists, both as individual FAB score components, and as an overall functional outcome measure. The ICC values range between 0 and 1, with values ≥0.70 considered 'good' agreement. Therefore, the desired ICC for the study will be set at 0.70 and ICC values will be interpreted as follows: ≤0.50 poor agreement, 0.50-0.70 moderate agreement, 0.70-0.90 good agreement, ≥0.90 excellent agreement and 1.00 perfect agreement. The statistical analysis of the ICC is obtained by analysis of variance (ANOVA). As there will be three different raters for each scoring episode, a One-Way Random Effects Model will be used in a fully crossed study design. A One-Way model will allow flexibility of rater selection depending on therapists' availability, as consistent participation on a busy hospital ward will not be achievable. As this model will not be able to separate rater and total variance (i.e. rater and error variances combined), both error and rater variances must be small to achieve a desirable agreement level.

Sample size:

In order to determine a sample size for the ICC it is necessary to have the desired ICC value, the expected confidence level, and the confidence level associated with the confidence interval. As ICC values ≥0.70 are considered 'good' agreement, the ICC will be set at 0.70. The expected confidence interval width is determined by a pre-specified power of at least 0.8 with 95% confidence interval. The confidence level associated with the confidence interval is examined in graphical form, with expected 95% confidence interval width plotted against the desired ICC value. This reveals that for a sample size yielding a 95% confidence interval, and confidence levels not exceeding 0.56 (0.70 x 0.80), the study will require a minimum of 60 measurements (FAB scores). As three raters will be present for each assessment, this will therefore require a minimum of 20 patient scoring episodes.

The study design, data analysis and sample size for this quantitative reliability study is based on a previous study investigating a different tool that uses a similar scoring method, the Functional Assessment for Burns in Critical Care (FAB-CC), at St Andrew's Burns Intensive Care Unit.

Conditions
Burns
Keywords
Inter-rater reliability, Functional Assessment for Burns
Medical subject headings
Burns

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Level of inter-rater reliability of the Functional Assessment for Burns (FAB) score

    Inter-rater reliability of the FAB score when used by three different therapists observing the same patient scoring episode, expressed as Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). The FAB score consists of seven daily activities including: feeding, washing, toileting, transfers, dressing, walking and stair climbing. Patients are scored on a numerical scale from 1-5 based on their ability to complete each activity independently, or on the minimum amount of assistance required to complete each task. The total score ranges between 7 (fully dependent) and 35 (fully independent).

    Measured: As per protocol at St Andrew's: FAB 1 taken within 48 hours admission to burns ward; FAB 2 taken within 48 hours discharge from burns ward; interim FAB scores taken at therapists' discretion

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted28 Sep 2023
  2. Study startFeb 2024 (estimated)
  3. Primary completionJun 2024 (estimated)
  4. Study completionDec 2024 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
30 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06059183
Sponsor's protocol ID
319644
Status last verified
Jan 2024
First submitted
24 Aug 2023
Last updated
12 Jan 2024
Results posted
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: Individual participant data that underlie the results reported in the study, after deidentification (text, tables, figures, and appendices).

Publications

  • Smailes ST, Engelsman K, Rodgers L, Upson C. Increasing the utility of the Functional Assessment for Burns Score: Not just for major burns. Burns. 2016 Feb;42(1):163-168. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2015.09.020. Epub 2015 Oct 25.

    PubMed 26508532
  • Smailes ST, Engelsman K, Dziewulski P. Physical functional outcome assessment of patients with major burns admitted to a UK Burn Intensive Care Unit. Burns. 2013 Feb;39(1):37-43. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2012.05.007. Epub 2012 Jun 6.

    PubMed 22677162
  • Eagan JH, Ramdharry G, Smailes ST. Investigating the interrater reliability of a novel functional outcome measure for use in the burns intensive care unit: The Functional Assessment for Burns - Critical Care (FAB-CC). Burns. 2020 Mar;46(2):279-285. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.12.004. Epub 2018 Dec 27.

    PubMed 30595543
  • Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Mar 18;10:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22.

    PubMed 20298572

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Burns, run by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Jan 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Sarah Smailes, PhD (01245516005, sarah.smailes@nhs.net), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Level of inter-rater reliability of the Functional Assessment for Burns (FAB) score (time frame: As per protocol at St Andrew's: FAB 1 taken within 48 hours admission to burns ward; FAB 2 taken within 48 hours discharge from burns ward; interim FAB scores taken at therapists' discretion). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06059183, which also lists 4 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Jan 2024.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in