The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity of a Pediatric Version of the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended
Open accessAbstract
The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and its most recent revision, the GOS-Extended (GOS-E), provide the gold standard for measuring traumatic brain injury (TBI) outcome. The GOS-E exhibits validity when used with adults and some adolescents, but validity with younger children is not established. Because the GOS-E lacks the developmental specificity necessary to evaluate children, toddlers, and infants, we modified the original version to create the GOS-E Pediatric Revision (GOS-E Peds), a developmentally appropriate structured interview, to classify younger patients. The criterion, predictive, and discriminant validity of the GOS-E Peds was measured in 159 subjects following TBI (mild: 36%; moderate: 12%; severe: 50%) at 3 and 6 months after injury. Participants were included from two studies completed at the Pediatric Neurotrauma Center at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. We assessed the relationship among GOS-E Peds, the GOS, and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales as well as other standardized measures of functional, behavioral, intellectual, and neuropsychological outcome. Premorbid function was assessed 24-36 h after injury. The GOS-E Peds showed a strong correlation with the GOS at 3 and 6 month time points. Criterion-related validity was also indicated by GOS-E Peds' association with most measures at both time points and at injury severity levels. The 3 month GOS-E Peds was associated with the 6 month GOS-E Peds, everyday function, behavior, and most cognitive abilities. Discriminant validity is suggested by weak correlations between both 3 and 6 month GOS-E Peds and premorbid measures. The GOS-E Peds is sensitive to severity of injury and is associated with changes in TBI sequelae over time. This pediatric revision provides a valid outcome measure in infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents through age 16. Findings support using the GOS-E Peds as the primary outcome variable in pediatric clinical trials.
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
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
Cited by
Nelson, L. D., Ranson, J., Ferguson, A. R., Giacino, J., Okonkwo, D. O., Valadka, A. B., Manley, G. T., McCrea, M. A., & the TRACK-TBI Investigators (2017) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2017.5139 · Cited by 73
Finnanger, T. G., Andersson, S., Chevignard, M., Johansen, G. O., Brandt, A. E., Hypher, R. E., Risnes, K., Rø, T. B., & Stubberud, J. (2022) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.761755 · Cited by 19
Parental perception of FIRES outcomes, emotional states, and social media usage
Farias‐Moeller, R., Wood, A., Sawdy, R., Koop, J., Olson, K., & van Baalen, A. (2021) · Epilepsia Open · doi:10.1002/epi4.12513 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Beers, S. R., Wisniewski, S. R., Garcia-Filion, P., Tian, Y., Hahner, T., Berger, R. P., Bell, M. J., & Adelson, P. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurotrauma
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-04-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1126-1139
- ISSN
- 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-9042
- OpenAlex
- W2032895042
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity of a Pediatric Version of the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/neu.2011.2272
- The paper
- Beers, S. R., Wisniewski, S. R., Garcia-Filion, P., Tian, Y., Hahner, T., Berger, R. P., Bell, M. J., & Adelson, P. D. (2012). Validity of a Pediatric Version of the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended. Journal of Neurotrauma. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2011.2272
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.