Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29948469›Full record

ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2018

A new tool to assess responsiveness in disorders of consciousness (DoC): a preliminary study on the Brief Post-Coma Scale (BPCS).

Rita Formisano, Marta Aloisi, Marco Iosa, Marianna Contrada, Federica Rizza, Davide Sattin, Matilde Leonardi, Mariagrazia D'Ippolito, on the behalf of the Italian National Consortium on Functioning and Disability in Disorders of Consciousness Patients

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Rita FormisanoPost-Coma Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy. r.formisano@hsantalucia.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2516-0540
Marta AloisiPost-Coma Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Marco IosaClinical Laboratory of Experimental Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Marianna ContradaPost-Coma Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Federica RizzaPost-Coma Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Davide SattinNeurology, Public Health and Disability Unit, Scientific Department, Neurological Institute "Carlo Besta", IRCCS Foundation, Milan, Italy.
Matilde LeonardiNeurology, Public Health and Disability Unit, Scientific Department, Neurological Institute "Carlo Besta", IRCCS Foundation, Milan, Italy.
Mariagrazia D'IppolitoPost-Coma Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
on the behalf of the Italian National Consortium on Functioning and Disability in Disorders of Consciousness Patients

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Brief Post-Coma Scale (BPCS) is an easy diagnostic tool for individuals with disorders of consciousness (DoC), in a reduced version from a previously Post-Coma Scale, that could distinguish patients in the minimally conscious state (MCS) from those in unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS), formerly defined as vegetative state (VS).

objectiveAim of the study was to assess the diagnostic validity of the BPCS in comparison with the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R), in its Italian validated version, the Disability Rating Scale (DRS), the Level of Cognitive Functioning (LCF), and the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS).

methodsIn an Italian multicenter study on 545 patients with DoC, 36 post-acute rehabilitation wards, 32 long-term care centers, and 2 family associations participated to data collection.

resultsStatistically significant correlations were found between the BPCS and the other clinical scales: R = 0.586 (p < 0.001) with LCF, R = - 0.566 (p < 0.001) with DRS, R = 0.622 (p < 0.001) with CRS-R. The BPCS scores resulted significantly correlated with the time from acute event (R = 0.117, p = 0.006). Patients with GOS score 2 had mean BPCS of 1.84 ± 1.19, whereas those with GOS 3 had significantly higher scores 3.88 ± 1.71 (p < 0.001). Similarly, in patients with vegetative state/UWS (VS/UWS), the mean BPSC score was 1.71 ± 1.09, significantly lower (p < 0.001) than that of patients with minimally conscious state (BPCS = 3.83 ± 1.29). Finally, the agreement of the BPCS and clinical diagnosis was of 84.4%, with an odds ratio OR = 3.781 (95% CI = 3.026-4.725, p < 0.001).

conclusionsThe BPCS has demonstrated statistically significant correlations with the most commonly used scales in persons with DoC.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveBrain Injuries, TraumaticConsciousness DisordersDiagnosis, DifferentialDisability EvaluationFemaleGlasgow Outcome ScaleHumansItalyLong-Term CareMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePreliminary DataRehabilitation CentersReproducibility of ResultsBrief Post-Coma ScaleComa Recovery Scale-RevisedDisorders of consciousnessOutcome evaluation scales

Identifiers

PMID29948469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.