Yelena G Bodien1, Cecilia A Carlowicz2, Camille Chatelle2, Joseph T Giacino2. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, MA. Electronic address: ybodien@partners.org. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the sensitivity and specificity of Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) total scores in detecting conscious awareness. DESIGN: Data were retrospectively extracted from the medical records of patients enrolled in a specialized disorders of consciousness (DOC) program. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were completed using CRS-R-derived diagnoses of minimally conscious state (MCS) or emerged from minimally conscious state (EMCS) as the reference standard for conscious awareness and the total CRS-R score as the test criterion. A receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed to demonstrate the optimal CRS-R total cutoff score for maximizing sensitivity and specificity. SETTING: Specialized DOC program. PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in the DOC program (N=252, 157 men; mean age, 49y; mean time from injury, 48d; traumatic etiology, n=127; nontraumatic etiology, n=125; diagnosis of coma or vegetative state, n=70; diagnosis of MCS or EMCS, n=182). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of CRS-R total scores in detecting conscious awareness. RESULTS: A CRS-R total score of 10 or higher yielded a sensitivity of .78 for correct identification of patients in MCS or EMCS, and a specificity of 1.00 for correct identification of patients who did not meet criteria for either of these diagnoses (ie, were diagnosed with vegetative state or coma). The area under the curve in the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis is .98. CONCLUSIONS: A total CRS-R score of 10 or higher provides strong evidence of conscious awareness but resulted in a false-negative diagnostic error in 22% of patients who demonstrated conscious awareness based on CRS-R diagnostic criteria. A cutoff score of 8 provides the best balance between sensitivity and specificity, accurately classifying 93% of cases. The optimal total score cutoff will vary depending on the user's objective.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the sensitivity and specificity of Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) total scores in detecting conscious awareness. DESIGN: Data were retrospectively extracted from the medical records of patients enrolled in a specialized disorders of consciousness (DOC) program. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were completed using CRS-R-derived diagnoses of minimally conscious state (MCS) or emerged from minimally conscious state (EMCS) as the reference standard for conscious awareness and the total CRS-R score as the test criterion. A receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed to demonstrate the optimal CRS-R total cutoff score for maximizing sensitivity and specificity. SETTING: Specialized DOC program. PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in the DOC program (N=252, 157 men; mean age, 49y; mean time from injury, 48d; traumatic etiology, n=127; nontraumatic etiology, n=125; diagnosis of coma or vegetative state, n=70; diagnosis of MCS or EMCS, n=182). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of CRS-R total scores in detecting conscious awareness. RESULTS: A CRS-R total score of 10 or higher yielded a sensitivity of .78 for correct identification of patients in MCS or EMCS, and a specificity of 1.00 for correct identification of patients who did not meet criteria for either of these diagnoses (ie, were diagnosed with vegetative state or coma). The area under the curve in the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis is .98. CONCLUSIONS: A total CRS-R score of 10 or higher provides strong evidence of conscious awareness but resulted in a false-negative diagnostic error in 22% of patients who demonstrated conscious awareness based on CRS-R diagnostic criteria. A cutoff score of 8 provides the best balance between sensitivity and specificity, accurately classifying 93% of cases. The optimal total score cutoff will vary depending on the user's objective.
Authors: Joseph T Giacino; S Ashwal; N Childs; R Cranford; B Jennett; D I Katz; J P Kelly; J H Rosenberg; J Whyte; R D Zafonte; N D Zasler Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-02-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: John C O'Donnell; Kevin D Browne; Todd J Kilbaugh; H Isaac Chen; John Whyte; D Kacy Cullen Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Camille Chatelle; Yelena G Bodien; Cecilia Carlowicz; Sarah Wannez; Vanessa Charland-Verville; Olivia Gosseries; Steven Laureys; Ron T Seel; Joseph T Giacino Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Corinne A Bareham; Neil Roberts; Judith Allanson; Peter J A Hutchinson; John D Pickard; David K Menon; Srivas Chennu Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Corinne A Bareham; Judith Allanson; Neil Roberts; Peter J A Hutchinson; John D Pickard; David K Menon; Srivas Chennu Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Corinne A Bareham; Judith Allanson; Neil Roberts; Peter J A Hutchinson; John D Pickard; David K Menon; Srivas Chennu Journal: Brain Commun Date: 2019-09-16
Authors: Jan Claassen; Yama Akbari; Sheila Alexander; Mary Kay Bader; Kathleen Bell; Thomas P Bleck; Melanie Boly; Jeremy Brown; Sherry H-Y Chou; Michael N Diringer; Brian L Edlow; Brandon Foreman; Joseph T Giacino; Olivia Gosseries; Theresa Green; David M Greer; Daniel F Hanley; Jed A Hartings; Raimund Helbok; J Claude Hemphill; H E Hinson; Karen Hirsch; Theresa Human; Michael L James; Nerissa Ko; Daniel Kondziella; Sarah Livesay; Lori K Madden; Shraddha Mainali; Stephan A Mayer; Victoria McCredie; Molly M McNett; Geert Meyfroidt; Martin M Monti; Susanne Muehlschlegel; Santosh Murthy; Paul Nyquist; DaiWai M Olson; J Javier Provencio; Eric Rosenthal; Gisele Sampaio Silva; Simone Sarasso; Nicholas D Schiff; Tarek Sharshar; Lori Shutter; Robert D Stevens; Paul Vespa; Walter Videtta; Amy Wagner; Wendy Ziai; John Whyte; Elizabeth Zink; Jose I Suarez Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 3.210