PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Patients with brain injuries are assessed using the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). This review evaluates the use of GCS scoring in medical literature and identifies the reasons for inaccuracy. LITERATURE SELECTION AND CRITICAL APPRAISAL: Pubmed and ISI Web of Knowledge SM were searched using specific keywords. The authors critically appraised the current state of GCS scoring, GCS definitions, the time and frequency of assessment, confounders, GCS reporting and GCS assessment schemes. MAIN OUTCOME AND RESULTS: More than 90% of the publications using GCS scoring cite the 14-item GCS rather than the 15-item GCS. The timing of the initial GCS assessment is inconstant. GCS components are seldom utilized, contributing to the loss of information. Confounders are often not reported and, if they are, not in a standardized manner. The order of the GCS components is not consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The current inconsistent and inappropriate use of GCS diminishes its reliability in both a clinical and a scientific context. A consensus statement is needed to correct this situation. Citing the correct references, early and repeated GCS assessments at defined intervals, standardized reporting of confounders and GCS component plus sum scores, and the utilization of a uniform assessment scheme are recommended.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE:Patients with brain injuries are assessed using the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). This review evaluates the use of GCS scoring in medical literature and identifies the reasons for inaccuracy. LITERATURE SELECTION AND CRITICAL APPRAISAL: Pubmed and ISI Web of Knowledge SM were searched using specific keywords. The authors critically appraised the current state of GCS scoring, GCS definitions, the time and frequency of assessment, confounders, GCS reporting and GCS assessment schemes. MAIN OUTCOME AND RESULTS: More than 90% of the publications using GCS scoring cite the 14-item GCS rather than the 15-item GCS. The timing of the initial GCS assessment is inconstant. GCS components are seldom utilized, contributing to the loss of information. Confounders are often not reported and, if they are, not in a standardized manner. The order of the GCS components is not consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The current inconsistent and inappropriate use of GCS diminishes its reliability in both a clinical and a scientific context. A consensus statement is needed to correct this situation. Citing the correct references, early and repeated GCS assessments at defined intervals, standardized reporting of confounders and GCS component plus sum scores, and the utilization of a uniform assessment scheme are recommended.
Authors: Jorge Humberto Mena; Alvaro Ignacio Sanchez; Andres M Rubiano; Andrew B Peitzman; Jason L Sperry; Maria Isabel Gutierrez; Juan Carlos Puyana Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-11
Authors: Florence C M Reith; Ruben Van den Brande; Anneliese Synnot; Russell Gruen; Andrew I R Maas Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Bram Jacobs; Tjemme Beems; Ton M van der Vliet; Arie B van Vugt; Cornelia Hoedemaekers; Janneke Horn; Gaby Franschman; Ian Haitsma; Joukje van der Naalt; Teuntje M J C Andriessen; George F Borm; Pieter E Vos Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: W Poon; C Matula; P E Vos; D F Muresanu; N von Steinbüchel; K von Wild; V Hömberg; E Wang; T M C Lee; S Strilciuc; J C Vester Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2019-09-07 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Michael J Young; Yelena G Bodien; Joseph T Giacino; Joseph J Fins; Robert D Truog; Leigh R Hochberg; Brian L Edlow Journal: Brain Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 13.501