Literature DB >> 8260953

A comparison of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Swedish Reaction Level Scale.

A J Johnstone1, J C Lohlun, J D Miller, C A McIntosh, A Gregori, R Brown, P A Jones, S I Anderson, J L Tocher.   

Abstract

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Swedish Reaction Level Scale (RLS85), two level-of-consciousness scales used in the assessment of patients with head injury, were compared in a prospective study of 239 patients admitted to a regional head injury unit over a 4-month period. Assessments were made by nine staff members ranging from house officer to registrar, after briefing about the two scales. Data were also collected on age, nature of injuries, surgical treatment, and condition at discharge or transfer using the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Both the GCS and the RLS85 reliably identified comatose patients and those with minor head injury, but were much less effective in defining the response level in patients considered to have a moderate head injury. Only 41% of the patients allocated to a moderate-head-injury category by the GCS and the RLS85 were common to both groups. Where a mismatch occurred, neither scale allocated patients to a 'better' or 'worse' category more frequently than the other. Assessment of patients' conscious levels using the GCS was difficult in only two cases. One patient had facial injuries, and the other was intubated. The RLS85 was reported by all users to be simpler to use than the GCS, but the latter is much more widespread in use. Both scales function well in cases of severe and minor head injury, but have weaknesses when defining moderate head injury. Level-of-consciousness scales are only an aid to assessment and the final choice between the two scales must remain a matter of personal or departmental preference.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8260953     DOI: 10.3109/02699059309008177

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Inj        ISSN: 0269-9052            Impact factor:   2.311


  7 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of coma: a critical appraisal of popular scoring systems.

Authors:  Joshua Kornbluth; Anish Bhardwaj
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.210

Review 2.  Methodological considerations in the neuropsychological study of central nervous system underarousal with a specific emphasis on coma.

Authors:  D E Stanczak
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 7.444

Review 3.  Head injury.

Authors:  G M Teasdale
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 10.154

4.  Interrater Reliability of Four Neurological Scales for Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

Authors:  Meghna Haldar; Ankur Verma; Sanjay Jaiswal; Wasil R Sheikh
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-12

5.  Neuro-intensive treatment targeting intracranial hypertension improves outcome in severe bacterial meningitis: an intervention-control study.

Authors:  Martin Glimåker; Bibi Johansson; Halla Halldorsdottir; Michael Wanecek; Adrian Elmi-Terander; Per Hamid Ghatan; Lars Lindquist; Bo Michael Bellander
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Transforming self-reported outcomes from a stroke register to the modified Rankin Scale: a cross-sectional, explorative study.

Authors:  Tamar Abzhandadze; Malin Reinholdsson; Annie Palstam; Marie Eriksson; Katharina S Sunnerhagen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Barriers to cognitive screening in acute stroke units.

Authors:  Tamar Abzhandadze; Dongni Buvarp; Åsa Lundgren-Nilsson; Katharina S Sunnerhagen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-04       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.