Observer variability in assessing impaired consciousness and coma.
Open Access
- 1 July 1978
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
- Vol. 41 (7) , 603-610
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.41.7.603
Abstract
Head-injured patients were examined by a number of observers whose assessments were compared. Considerable discrepancies occurred when overall "levels" of consciousness and coma were used, and also with some terms which are in common use. More consistent assessments were obtained by employing the "Glasgow Coma Scale," which describes eye opening, verbal behaviour, and motor responsiveness. Nurses and general surgeons were as consistent as neurosurgeons when using this scale, and it was relatively resistant to language or cultural differences between observers. The practical reliability of the Glasgow scale enhances its value, both for monitoring individual cases and for making meaningful comparisons between series of patients with acute brain damage.This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Measuring the outcome from head injuriesJournal of Neurosurgery, 1978
- A prospective study of nontraumatic coma: Methods and results in 310 patientsAnnals of Neurology, 1977
- Severe head injuries in three countries.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 1977
- PREDICTING OUTCOME IN INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS AFTER SEVERE HEAD INJURYThe Lancet, 1976
- Observer variation in assessment of results of surgery for peptic ulceration.BMJ, 1976
- Assessment and prognosis of coma after head injuryActa Neurochirurgica, 1976
- ASSESSMENT OF COMA AND IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESSThe Lancet, 1974
- Discrepancies in Recorded Results from Duplicate Neurological History and Examination in Patients Studied for Prognosis in Cerebrovascular DiseaseStroke, 1970
- An evaluation of the reliability and validity of the plantar response in a psychogeriatric populationJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1968
- Observer Variation in the Endoscopic Diagnosis of Esophageal VaricesNew England Journal of Medicine, 1965