Cited by 7,501Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME AFTER SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE A Practical Scale

JENNETT, B·1975·The Lancet

Abstract

Persisting disability after brain damage usually comprises both mental and physical handicap. The mental component is often the more important in contributing to overall social disability. Lack of an objective scale leads to vague and over-optimistic estimates of outcome, which obscure the ultimate results of early management. A five-point scale is described--death, persistent vegetative state, severe disability, moderate disability, and good recovery. Duration as well as intensity of disability should be included in an index of ill-health; this applies particularly after head injury, because many disabled survivors are young.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(75)92830-5

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Glasgow Outcome Scale used to assess outcome was developed to evaluate recovery after brain injury and is not validated for CNS infections.

    “The GOS used to assess the outcome in the present study was developed to evaluate recovery after brain injury35 and is—although frequently used16,17,36—not validated for CNS infections.”
  • There are limited data regarding how ransomware cyberattacks impact adjacent, untargeted hospitals.

    “Although the operational effects of ransomware-infected HDOs have been reported, there are limited data regarding how ransomware cyberattacks impact adjacent, untargeted hospitals (4).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
JENNETT, B.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
JENNETT, B
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1975-03
Volume
305
Issue
7905
Pages
480-484
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W1874700596
Cited by
7,501
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 109 · 2025: 153 · 2024: 161 · 2023: 173 · 2022: 183 · 2021: 218 · 2020: 215 · 2019: 188 · 2018: 240 · 2017: 235 · 2016: 245 · 2015: 228 · 2014: 235 · 2013: 249 · 2012: 254
FWCI
27.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
severe brain damage, outcome measurement, disability scales, persistent vegetative state, traumatic brain injury, mental disability, physical handicap, social dysfunction, recovery
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Mental Disorders, Brain Injuries, Child, Coma, Disability Evaluation, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Neurologic Manifestations, Personality Disorders, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review