Interrater reliability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in the emergency department

被引:210
|
作者
Gill, MR [1 ]
Reiley, DG [1 ]
Green, SM [1 ]
机构
[1] Loma Linda Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Emergency Med, Sch Med, Loma Linda, CA 92354 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00814-X
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Study objective: Emergency physicians often use the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) to help guide decisions in patient care, yet the reliability of the GCS has never been tested in a typical broad sample of emergency department (ED) patients. We determined the interrater reliability of the GCS between emergency physicians when adult patients with altered levels of consciousness are assessed. Methods: In this prospective observational study at a university Level I trauma center, we enrolled a convenience sample of ED patients older than 17 years who presented with an altered level of consciousness. Two residency-trained attending emergency physicians independently assessed and recorded the GCS score and its components (eye, verbal, and motor) in blinded fashion within a 5-minute period. Data were analyzed for interrater reliability by using standard ordinal calculations. We also created scatter plots and Bland-Altman plots for each GCS component and for the GCS score. Results: One hundred thirty-one patients were screened and enrolled in the study, with 15 excluded because of protocol violations. Of the 116 remaining patients, the agreement percentage for exact total GCS was 32% (tau-b=0.739; Spearman rho=0.864; Spearman rho(2)=75%). Agreement percentage for GCS components were eye 74% (tau-b=0.715; Spearman rho=0.757; Spearman rho(2)=57%), verbal 55% (tau-b=0.587; Spearman rho=0.665; Spearman rho(2)=44%), and motor 72% (tau-b=0.742; Spearman rho=0.808; Spearman rho(2)=65%). Our Spearman's analyses found that only approximately half (44% to 65%) of the observed variance could be explained by the relationship between the paired component measures. For GCS components, only 55% to 74% of paired measures were identical, and 6% to 17% of them were 2 or more points apart. Conclusion: We found only moderate degrees of interrater agreement for the GCS and its components.
引用
收藏
页码:215 / 223
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Accuracy and interrater reliability of paediatric emergency department triage
    Allen, Amy R.
    Spittal, Matthew J.
    Nicolas, Caroline
    Oakley, Ed
    Freed, Gary L.
    EMERGENCY MEDICINE AUSTRALASIA, 2015, 27 (05) : 438 - 443
  • [22] Validation of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Scale for conscious state in the emergency department: comparison against the Glasgow Coma Scale
    Kevric, J.
    Jelinek, G. A.
    Knott, J.
    Weiland, T. J.
    EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2011, 28 (06) : 486 - 490
  • [23] The Glasgow Coma Scale
    Sternbach, GL
    JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2000, 19 (01): : 67 - 71
  • [24] GLASGOW COMA SCALE
    JONES, C
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING, 1979, 79 (09) : 1551 - 1553
  • [25] Comparison of the predictive utility of Revised Trauma Score, Emergency Trauma Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale-Age-Pressure scores for emergency department mortality in multiple trauma patients
    Efeoglu Sacak, Melis
    Akoglu, Haldun
    Onur, Ozge
    Denizbasi, Arzu
    MARMARA MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 33 (03): : 107 - 112
  • [26] THE GLASGOW COMA SCALE
    BERNEY, J
    SCHWEIZERISCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 1982, 112 (27-2) : 961 - 963
  • [27] Factors Influencing the Reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: A Systematic Review
    Reith, Florence C. M.
    Synnot, Anneliese
    van den Brande, Ruben
    Gruen, Russell L.
    Maas, Andrew I. R.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2017, 80 (06) : 829 - 838
  • [28] RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF THE GLASGOW COMA SCALE WITH EXPERIENCED AND INEXPERIENCED USERS
    ROWLEY, G
    FIELDING, K
    LANCET, 1991, 337 (8740): : 535 - 538
  • [30] Nurses Assessing Pain with the Nociception Coma Scale: Interrater Reliability and Validity
    Vink, Peter
    Eskes, Anne Maria
    Lindeboom, Robert
    van den Munckhof, Pepijn
    Vermeulen, Hester
    PAIN MANAGEMENT NURSING, 2014, 15 (04) : 881 - 887