The reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review

被引:246
作者
Reith, Florence C. M. [1 ,2 ]
Van den Brande, Ruben [1 ,2 ]
Synnot, Anneliese [3 ,4 ,7 ]
Gruen, Russell [5 ,6 ,8 ]
Maas, Andrew I. R. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Antwerp Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium
[2] Univ Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium
[3] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, ANZIC RC, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[4] La Trobe Univ, Sch Psychol & Publ Hlth, Ctr Hlth Commun & Participat, Cochrane Consumers & Commun Review Grp, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[5] Monash Univ, Cent Clin Sch, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[6] Nanyang Technol Univ, Lee Kong Chian Sch Med, Singapore 639798, Singapore
[7] Monash Univ, Alfred Hosp, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, ANZIC RC, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[8] Alfred Ctr, Cent Clin Sch, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
关键词
Glasgow Coma Scale; Glasgow Coma Score; Grading scales; Reliability; Reproducibility of results; Systematic review; AGITATION-SEDATION SCALE; 4; SCORE; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; EMERGENCY-DEPARTMENT; IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS; APACHE-II; OBSERVER VARIABILITY; ACUTE PHYSIOLOGY; FULL OUTLINE; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1007/s00134-015-4124-3
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
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. 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. 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 a parts per thousand yen0.6 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. 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.
引用
收藏
页码:3 / 15
页数:13
相关论文
共 84 条
[1]   Endorsement of the FOUR Score for Consciousness Assessment in Neurosurgical Patients [J].
Akavipat, Phuping .
NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA, 2009, 49 (12) :565-571
[2]   Precision and Reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale Score among a Cohort of Latin American Prehospital Emergency Care Providers [J].
Alejandro Baez, Amado ;
Giraldez, Ediza M. ;
De Pena, Julio M. .
PREHOSPITAL AND DISASTER MEDICINE, 2007, 22 (03) :230-232
[3]   Appropriateness and Reliability Testing of the Modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale in Spanish Patients With Advanced Cancer [J].
Angel Benitez-Rosario, Miguel ;
Castillo-Padros, Manuel ;
Garrido-Bernet, Belen ;
Gonzalez-Guillermo, Toribio ;
Pedro Martinez-Castillo, Luis ;
Gonzalez, Aceysele .
JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2013, 45 (06) :1112-1119
[4]  
[Anonymous], NEUROCRIT CARE
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1994, PSYCHOMETRIC THEORY
[6]  
[Anonymous], AUSTRALAS J PARAMED
[7]  
[Anonymous], INT MED J
[8]  
Ashkenazy Shelly, 2011, Heart Lung, V40, pe44, DOI 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2009.12.011
[9]  
Baker M., 2008, BRIT J NEUROSCIENCE, V4, P342
[10]  
BRAAKMAN R, 1977, CLIN NEUROL NEUROSUR, V80, P104