Florence C M Reith1,2, Ruben Van den Brande3,4, Anneliese Synnot5,6,7, Russell Gruen8,9,10, Andrew I R Maas3,4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650, Edegem, Belgium. florence.reith@uza.be. 2. University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium. florence.reith@uza.be. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650, Edegem, Belgium. 4. University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium. 5. Australian & New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. 7. ANZIC-RC, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Hospital, Level 6, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. 8. Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 9. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore. 10. Central Clinical School, Level 6, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Glasgow Coma Scale; Glasgow Coma Score; Grading scales; Reliability; Reproducibility of results; Systematic review
Authors: Won Hyung A Ryu; Anthony Feinstein; Angela Colantonio; David L Streiner; Deirdre R Dawson Journal: Can J Neurol Sci Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Eelco F M Wijdicks; William R Bamlet; Boby V Maramattom; Edward M Manno; Robyn L McClelland Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Grant C O'Connell; Megan L Alder; Christine G Smothers; Carolyn H Still; Allison R Webel; Shirley M Moore Journal: Neurol Res Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Faheem W Guirgis; Michael A Puskarich; Carmen Smotherman; Sarah A Sterling; Shiva Gautam; Frederick A Moore; Alan E Jones Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.510