Abstract-Objective:To establish consensus recommendations among health care specialties for defining and establishing diagnostic criteria for the minimally conscious state (MCS). Background: There is a subgroup of patients with severe alteration in consciousness who do not meet diagnostic criteria for coma or the vegetative state (VS). These patients demonstrate inconsistent but discernible evidence of consciousness. It is important to distinguish patients in MCS from those in coma and VS because preliminary findings suggest that there are meaningful differences in outcome. Methods: An evidence-based literature review of disorders of consciousness was completed to define MCS, develop diagnostic criteria for entry into MCS, and identify markers for emergence to higher levels of cognitive function. Results: There were insufficient data to establish evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis, prognosis, and management of MCS. Therefore, a consensusbased case definition with behaviorally referenced diagnostic criteria was formulated to facilitate future empirical investigation. Conclusions: MCS is characterized by inconsistent but clearly discernible behavioral evidence of consciousness and can be distinguished from coma and VS by documenting the presence of specific behavioral features not found in either of these conditions. Patients may evolve to MCS from coma or VS after acute brain injury. MCS may also result from degenerative or congenital nervous system disorders. This condition is often transient but may also exist as a permanent outcome. Defining MCS should promote further research on its epidemiology, neuropathology, natural history, and management.
SUMMARY The nature of the neurological and mental disabilities resulting from severe head injuries are analysed in 150 patients. Mental handicap contributed more significantly to overall social disability than did neurological deficits. This social handicap is readily described by the Glasgow Outcome Scale, an extended version of which is described and compared with alternatives. Comments are made about the quality oflife in disabled survivors.
The Glasgow Coma Scale, based upon eye opening, verbal and motor responses has proved a practical and consistent means of monitoring the state of head injured patients. Observations made in the early stages after injury define the depth and duration of coma and, when combined with clinical features such as a patient's age and brain stem function, have been used to predict outcome. Series of cases in comparable depths of coma in Glasgow and the Netherlands showed remarkably similar outcomes at 3 months. Based upon observations made in the first 24 hours of coma after injury, data from 255 previous cases reliably predicted outcome in the majority of 92 new patients. The exceptions were patients with potential to recover who later developed complications: no patient did significantly better than predicted.
The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), two decades after its description, remains the most widely used method of analyzing outcome in series of severely head-injured patients. This review considers limitations recognized in the use of the GOS and discusses a new approach to assessment, using a structured questionnaire-based interview. Assignments can be made to an extended eight-point scale (GOSE) as well as the original five-point approach-in each case, with a high degree of interobserver consistency. The assignments are coherent with the principles of the World Health Organization classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps, and their validity is supported by strong associations with the results of neuropsychological testing and assessment of general health status. The need to allow for disability existing before injury, issues concerning the time of assessment after injury, and subdivisions of the scale into "favorable" and "unfavorable" categories are discussed. It is concluded that, in its improved structured format, the Glasgow Outcome Scale should remain the primary method of assessing outcome in trials of the management of severe head injury.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.