2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.10.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of the Simplified Motor Score for the Prediction of Brain Injury Outcomes After Trauma

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
27
0
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
4
27
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, pre-hospital GCS scores were compared with its assessment in the ED, and poor agreement was found in patients with traumatic head injury and GCS sum scores <13 points [2]. This disagreement between emergency medical service and emergency physicians confirmed a number of earlier studies that found only good agreement in alert or near alert (GCS [13][14][15] patients [3,4]. Other observational studies found concerning disagreements between ED physicians and ED physicians and nurses when rating consciousness using the GCS [5,6], and marked differences between level I trauma centers in calculations of the GCS were found [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Recently, pre-hospital GCS scores were compared with its assessment in the ED, and poor agreement was found in patients with traumatic head injury and GCS sum scores <13 points [2]. This disagreement between emergency medical service and emergency physicians confirmed a number of earlier studies that found only good agreement in alert or near alert (GCS [13][14][15] patients [3,4]. Other observational studies found concerning disagreements between ED physicians and ED physicians and nurses when rating consciousness using the GCS [5,6], and marked differences between level I trauma centers in calculations of the GCS were found [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Studies in the ED have not only involved validation of the scale, but also attempts at modifications (e.g., simplified motor scale) eliminating the eye and verbal response [15]. We would argue that further simplification of the GCS diminishes neurologic assessment despite better interrater reliability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, we found that the GCS verbal component was related to brain activity within neural networks that are likely to be involved in visual attention and the inhibition of pre-potent responses. Although the GCS motor component has often been reported to have a stronger relation with survival or overall level of disability (Al-Salamah, et al, 2004), other studies have found that the eye and verbal components are good predictors when they can be reliably obtained (Haukoos et al, 2007). Our finding that the GCS verbal score was specifically related to cognitive control induced brain activation may reflect that the transition to normal consciousness is graded on the verbal component of the GCS by resolution of confusion, a relatively late stage of the initial hospitalization when sedation has been lifted and patients are beginning to consistently follow commands, i.e., their motor scores have already approached a normal level.…”
Section: Relation Of Gcs Component Scores To Brain Activationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…North-American studies (one Canadian and five American studies), reaching 0.89 when pre-hospital GCS values of victims cared for at a trauma referral center were analyzed (12,21,23) .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ROC is frequently used in studies to compare the performance of general and partial scores obtained in the GCS (eye opening, best verbal response, and best motor response) (12,14,23) . Analysis concerning the GCS discriminatory capacity is also performed to verify its performance at different times and to compare it in relation to other prognostic models, such as the Rev.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%