ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
The validity, reliability and feasibility of four instruments for assessing the consciousness of stroke patients in a neurological intensive care unit compared.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monitoring the Depth of Sedation During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Recommendations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score evaluation to predict patient outcomes with neurological illnesses in intensive care units in West Bank: a prospective cross-sectional study.Acute and critical care · 2024Article
- The Current of Consciousness: Neural Correlates and Clinical Aspects.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly rehabilitation is the foundation for recovery for those admitted to an intensive care unit. Appropriate assessment of consciousness is needed before any rehabilitative intervention begins.
methodsThis prospective study compared the validity, reliability and applicability of the sedation-agitation scale, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, the motor activity assessment scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale in a working neurological intensive care unit. Eighty-three stroke patients were assessed with the four scales by the same 3 raters acting independently: a senior physician, a senior therapist and a trainee. That generated 996 assessment records for comparison.
resultsGood agreement (r=0.98-0.99) was found among the sedation-agitation scale, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, the motor activity assessment scale scores, but the Glasgow Coma Scale ratings correlated less well (r=0.72-0.76) with the others. Consistent results were also found among the three raters. After stratification of the ratings by age, gender, level of consciousness and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, the scales reported significant differences among the levels of consciousness and among those with different Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation results, but not with different age or gender strata.
conclusionsThe four instruments tested are all reliable enough and feasible for use as a tool for consciousness screening in a neurological intensive care unit.
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.