| Title |
The reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-015-4124-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florence C. M. Reith, Ruben Van den Brande, Anneliese Synnot, Russell Gruen, Andrew I. R. Maas |
| Abstract |
The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) provides a structured method for assessment of the level of consciousness. Its derived sum score is applied in research and adopted in intensive care unit scoring systems. Controversy exists on the reliability of the GCS. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize evidence on the reliability of the GCS. A literature search was undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Observational studies that assessed the reliability of the GCS, expressed by a statistical measure, were included. Methodological quality was evaluated with the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist and its influence on results considered. Reliability estimates were synthesized narratively. We identified 52 relevant studies that showed significant heterogeneity in the type of reliability estimates used, patients studied, setting and characteristics of observers. Methodological quality was good (n = 7), fair (n = 18) or poor (n = 27). In good quality studies, kappa values were ≥0.6 in 85 %, and all intraclass correlation coefficients indicated excellent reliability. Poor quality studies showed lower reliability estimates. Reliability for the GCS components was higher than for the sum score. Factors that may influence reliability include education and training, the level of consciousness and type of stimuli used. Only 13 % of studies were of good quality and inconsistency in reported reliability estimates was found. Although the reliability was adequate in good quality studies, further improvement is desirable. From a methodological perspective, the quality of reliability studies needs to be improved. From a clinical perspective, a renewed focus on training/education and standardization of assessment is required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 60% |
| Italy | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 406 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 402 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 78 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 45 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 35 | 9% |
| Other | 26 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 6% |
| Other | 81 | 20% |
| Unknown | 116 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 134 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 62 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 25 | 6% |
| Engineering | 7 | 2% |
| Psychology | 6 | 1% |
| Other | 35 | 9% |
| Unknown | 137 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,185,934
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,593
of 5,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,956
of 282,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#6
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.