Cited by 279Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

Interrater reliability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in the emergency department

Gill, Michelle R, Reiley, David G, Green, Steven M·2004·Annals of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

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 rho2=75%). Agreement percentage for GCS components were eye 74% (tau-b=0.715; Spearman rho=0.757; Spearman rho2=57%), verbal 55% (tau-b=0.587; Spearman rho=0.665; Spearman rho2=44%), and motor 72% (tau-b=0.742; Spearman rho=0.808; Spearman rho2=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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0196-0644(03)00814-x

Cites

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?

  • Classification of injury based on GCS has limitations including inter-observer reliability, timing after injury, reduced meaning after repeated injury and assessment, and use of medications at the scene potentially altering scoring.

    “Classification of injury based on GCS has limitations including inter-observer reliability, timing after injury, reduced meaning after repeated injury and assessment, as well as use of medications at the scene of the accident potentially altering scoring [16,17,18].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 279

Authors
Gill, M. R., Reiley, D. G., & Green, S. M.
Affiliations
Loma Linda University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Gill, Michelle R
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-02
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
215-223
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016765798
Cited by
279
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 11
FWCI
10.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
Glasgow Coma Scale, inter-rater reliability, altered level of consciousness, emergency physicians, neurological assessment, emergency department patients
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Emergency Medicine, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Staff, Hospital, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Glasgow Coma Scale, Single-Blind Method, Statistics, Nonparametric

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