Literature DB >> 20334503

A method for reducing misclassification in the extended Glasgow Outcome Score.

Juan Lu1, Anthony Marmarou, Kate Lapane, Elizabeth Turf, Lindsay Wilson.   

Abstract

The eight-point extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) is commonly used as the primary outcome measure in traumatic brain injury (TBI) clinical trials. The outcome is conventionally collected through a structured interview with the patient alone or together with a caretaker. Despite the fact that using the structured interview questionnaires helps reach agreement in GOSE assessment between raters, significant variation remains among different raters. We introduce an alternate GOSE rating system as an aid in determining GOSE scores, with the objective of reducing inter-rater variation in the primary outcome assessment in TBI trials. Forty-five trauma centers were randomly assigned to three groups to assess GOSE scores on sample cases, using the alternative GOSE rating system coupled with central quality control (Group 1), the alternative system alone (Group 2), or conventional structured interviews (Group 3). The inter-rater variation between an expert and untrained raters was assessed for each group and reported through raw agreement and with weighted kappa (kappa) statistics. Groups 2 and 3 without central review yielded inter-rater agreements of 83% (weighted kappa = 0.81; 95% CI 0.69, 0.92) and 83% (weighted kappa = 0.76, 95% CI 0.63, 0.89), respectively, in GOS scores. In GOSE, the groups had an agreement of 76% (weighted kappa = 0.79; 95% CI 0.69, 0.89), and 63% (weighted kappa = 0.70; 95% CI 0.60, 0.81), respectively. The group using the alternative rating system coupled with central monitoring yielded the highest inter-rater agreement among the three groups in rating GOS (97%; weighted kappa = 0.95; 95% CI 0.89, 1.00), and GOSE (97%; weighted kappa = 0.97; 95% CI 0.91, 1.00). The alternate system is an improved GOSE rating method that reduces inter-rater variations and provides for the first time, source documentation and structured narratives that allow a thorough central review of information. The data suggest that a collective effort can be made to minimize inter-rater variation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20334503      PMCID: PMC2943940          DOI: 10.1089/neu.2010.1293

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurotrauma        ISSN: 0897-7151            Impact factor:   5.269


  18 in total

1.  A single dose, three-arm, placebo-controlled, phase I study of the bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist Anatibant (LF16-0687Ms) in patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Anthony Marmarou; Martine Guy; Laine Murphey; Francis Roy; Laure Layani; Jean-Philippe Combal; Claude Marquer
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.269

2.  Assessing disability after head injury: improved use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale.

Authors:  L E Pettigrew; J T Wilson; G M Teasdale
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 3.  Analyzing outcome of treatment of severe head injury: a review and update on advancing the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale.

Authors:  G M Teasdale; L E Pettigrew; J T Wilson; G Murray; B Jennett
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 5.269

4.  An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Agreement between physicians on assessment of outcome following severe head injury.

Authors:  A I Maas; R Braakman; H J Schouten; J M Minderhoud; A H van Zomeren
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 5.115

6.  Misclassification and treatment effect on primary outcome measures in clinical trials of severe neurotrauma.

Authors:  Sung C Choi; Guy L Clifton; Anthony Marmarou; Emmy R Miller
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.269

7.  Why have recent trials of neuroprotective agents in head injury failed to show convincing efficacy? A pragmatic analysis and theoretical considerations

Authors: 
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Intercenter variance in clinical trials of head trauma--experience of the National Acute Brain Injury Study: Hypothermia.

Authors:  G L Clifton; S C Choi; E R Miller; H S Levin; K R Smith; J P Muizelaar; F C Wagner; D W Marion; T G Luerssen
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.115

9.  Effects of Glasgow Outcome Scale misclassification on traumatic brain injury clinical trials.

Authors:  Juan Lu; Gordon D Murray; Ewout W Steyerberg; Isabella Butcher; Gillian S McHugh; Hester Lingsma; Nino Mushkudiani; Sung Choi; Andrew I R Maas; Anthony Marmarou
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 5.269

10.  Disability after severe head injury: observations on the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale.

Authors:  B Jennett; J Snoek; M R Bond; N Brooks
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 10.154

View more
  17 in total

1.  Lessons from traumatic head injury for assessing functional status after brain tumour.

Authors:  J T Lindsay Wilson
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2012-02-11       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 2.  Neuropsychological Predictors of Outcome Following Traumatic Brain Injury in Adults: a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Fiona Allanson; Carmela Pestell; Gilles E Gignac; Yong Xiang Yeo; Michael Weinborn
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 7.444

3.  Cognitive-motor dissociation and time to functional recovery in patients with acute brain injury in the USA: a prospective observational cohort study.

Authors:  Jennifer Egbebike; Qi Shen; Kevin Doyle; Caroline A Der-Nigoghossian; Lucy Panicker; Ian Jerome Gonzales; Lauren Grobois; Jerina C Carmona; Athina Vrosgou; Arshneil Kaur; Amelia Boehme; Angela Velazquez; Benjamin Rohaut; David Roh; Sachin Agarwal; Soojin Park; E Sander Connolly; Jan Claassen
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 59.935

Review 4.  Animal models of traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Ye Xiong; Asim Mahmood; Michael Chopp
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 34.870

5.  Functional Status Examination in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries.

Authors:  Joan Machamer; Nancy R Temkin; Geoffrey T Manley; Sureyya Dikmen
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 5.269

6.  Prediction of outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models.

Authors:  Bob Roozenbeek; Hester F Lingsma; Fiona E Lecky; Juan Lu; James Weir; Isabella Butcher; Gillian S McHugh; Gordon D Murray; Pablo Perel; Andrew I Maas; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 7.  The Glasgow Outcome Scale - 40 years of application and refinement.

Authors:  Tom McMillan; Lindsay Wilson; Jennie Ponsford; Harvey Levin; Graham Teasdale; Michael Bond
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 42.937

8.  M-CSF, IL-6, and TGF-β promote generation of a new subset of tissue repair macrophage for traumatic brain injury recovery.

Authors:  Zhiqi Li; Jun Xiao; Xiaoyan Xu; Weiyun Li; Ruiyue Zhong; Linlin Qi; Jiehui Chen; Guizhong Cui; Shuang Wang; Yuxiao Zheng; Ying Qiu; Sheng Li; Xin Zhou; Yao Lu; Jiaying Lyu; Bin Zhou; Jiawei Zhou; Naihe Jing; Bin Wei; Jin Hu; Hongyan Wang
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 14.136

9.  Converting three general-cognitive function scales into persian and assessment of their validity and reliability.

Authors:  Payam Moin; Nima Khalighinejad; Arash Yusefi; Ziba Farajzadegan; Majid Barekatain
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2011-04

10.  Selection and visualisation of outcome measures for complex post-acute acquired brain injury rehabilitation interventions.

Authors:  Catherine Elaine Longworth Ford; Donna Malley; Andrew Bateman; Isabel C H Clare; Adam P Wagner; Fergus Gracey
Journal:  NeuroRehabilitation       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 2.138

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.