The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analyzing Outcome of Treatment of Severe Head Injury: A Review and Update on Advancing the Use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale
Abstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
ASSESSMENT OF COMA AND IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS
Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0 · Cited by 13,215
Self-citationWILSON, J. T. L., PETTIGREW, L. E. L., & TEASDALE, G. M. (1998) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.1998.15.573 · Cited by 2,386
Self-citation
Cited by
Clinical trials in head injury
Narayan, R. K., Michel, M. E., Ansell, B., Baethmann, A., Biegon, A., Bracken, M. B., Bullock, M. R., Choi, S. C., Clifton, G. L., Contant, C. F., et al. (2002) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/089771502753754037 · Cited by 913
Self-citationPonsford, J. L., Downing, M. G., Olver, J., Ponsford, M., Acher, R., Carty, M., & Spitz, G. (2014) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2013.2997 · Cited by 621
Stender, J., Gosseries, O., Bruno, M.-A., Charland-Verville, V., Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Demertzi, A., Chatelle, C., Thonnard, M., Thibaut, A., Heine, L., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60042-8 · Cited by 550
Contemporary Outcome Measures in Acute Stroke Research: Choice of Primary Outcome Measure
Lees, K. R., Bath, P. M. W., Schellinger, P. D., Kerr, D. M., Fulton, R., Hacke, W., Matchar, D., Sehra, R., & Toni, D. (2012) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.111.641423 · Cited by 242
Zhang, Z., Zoltewicz, J. S., Mondello, S., Newsom, K. J., Yang, Z., Yang, B., Kobeissy, F., Guingab, J., Glushakova, O., Robicsek, S., et al. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092698 · Cited by 200
Metadata
- Authors
- TEASDALE, G. M., PETTIGREW, L. E. L., WILSON, J. T. L., MURRAY, G., & JENNETT, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurotrauma
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 587-597
- ISSN
- 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-9042
- OpenAlex
- W2040636124
- Cited by
- 554
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
