BurnsNCT06059183
The FAB Score Inter-rater Reliability Study
An observational study of Burns, run by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust.
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.
Catherine Wharfe, MSc contact
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.
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.
- First posted28 Sep 2023
- Study startFeb 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completionJun 2024 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2024 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for BurnsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
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 26508532Smailes 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 22677162Eagan 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 30595543Mokkink 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
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Jan 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Investigating the Inter-rater Reliability of the Functional Assessment for Burns (FAB) Score in Adult Burn Inpatients
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06059183
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 319644
- Conditions
- Burns
- Keywords
- Inter-rater reliability, Functional Assessment for Burns
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation TrustUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2024 (estimated)
- First posted
- 28 Sep 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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).
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.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Male and female patients aged 18 years and over admitted to St Andrew's adult burns ward
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Male and female adult patients admitted to St Andrew's burns ward with burn injuries
- ≥18 years old
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patients admitted with medical skin loss conditions
- Unwilling to provide informed consent
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
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
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).
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Jan 2024.
- Background: PubMed 26508532Smailes 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.
- Background: PubMed 22677162Smailes 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.
- Background: PubMed 30595543Eagan 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.
- Background: PubMed 20298572Mokkink 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Individual participant data that underlie the results reported in the study, after deidentification (text, tables, figures, and appendices).
Related trials for Burns
RecruitingObservational study
Early Detection and Kinetics of Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy in Severe Burn Patients
Sepsis, Sepsis-induced Coagulopathy
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Hypertrophic Scar Prosthetic Pressure in Burn Amputee
Amputation Stump, Burn Injury
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Short-Video Distraction During Burn Dressing on Anxiety, Pain, and Fear in Children
Burn Injury, Procedural Anxiety
RecruitingObservational study
Early Detection and Kinetics of Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy in Severe Burn Patients
Peer Bullying Intervention, Vodcast
Recruiting
Hand Function Outcome After the Application of Transfer Energy Capacitive and Resistive on Post-burn Patients Presented With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) Post-burn
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Catherine Wharfe, MSc contact
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.