Trial reportAnnals of emergency medicine2015
Randomized controlled trial of a scoring aid to improve Glasgow Coma Scale scoring by emergency medical services providers.
Trial report in Annals of emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review.Intensive care medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Effects of a scoring aid on glasgow coma score assessment and physicians' comprehension: a simulator-based randomized clinical trial.Journal of neurology · 2024Trial
- Article
- Comparison of Glasgow coma scale, motor component, eye component, and simplified motor scale for predicting trauma outcomes: a 13-year multicenter retrospective cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Age-to-Glasgow Coma Scale score ratio predicts gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Effect of Implementing the Out-of-Hospital Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment Guidelines: The Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care for Children Study (EPIC4Kids).Annals of emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Teaching Glasgow Coma Scale Assessment by Videos: A Prospective Interventional Study among Surgical Residents.Journal of neurosciences in rural practice · 2020Article
- Article
- Randomized controlled trials of simulation-based interventions in Emergency Medicine: a methodological review.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Review
- Effect of Age on Glasgow Coma Scale in Patients with Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: An Approach with Propensity Score-Matched Population.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveEmergency medical services (EMS) personnel frequently use the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) to assess injured and critically ill patients. This study assesses the accuracy of EMS providers' GCS scoring, as well as the improvement in GCS score assessment with the use of a scoring aid.
methodsThis randomized, controlled study was conducted in the emergency department (ED) of an urban academic trauma center. Emergency medical technicians or paramedics who transported a patient to the ED were randomly assigned one of 9 written scenarios, either with or without a GCS scoring aid. Scenarios were created by consensus of expert attending emergency medicine, EMS, and neurocritical care physicians, with universal consensus agreement on GCS scores. χ(2) And Student's t tests were used to compare groups.
resultsOf 180 participants, 178 completed the study. Overall, 73 of 178 participants (41%) gave a GCS score that matched the expert consensus score. GCS score was correct in 22 of 88 (25%) cases without the scoring aid. GCS was correct in 51 of 90 (57%) cases with the scoring aid. Most (69%) of the total GCS scores fell within 1 point of the expert consensus GCS score. Differences in accuracy were most pronounced in scenarios with a correct GCS score of 12 or below. Subcomponent accuracy was eye 62%, verbal 70%, and motor 51%.
conclusionIn this study, 60% of EMS participants provided inaccurate GCS score estimates. Use of a GCS scoring aid improved accuracy of EMS GCS score assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.