Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35403101›Full record

ArticleNeurotrauma reports2022

How Do Scores on the Functional Status Examination (FSE) Correspond to Scores on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE)?

Lindsay D Nelson, Brooke E Magnus, Nancy R Temkin, Sureyya Dikmen, Geoffrey T Manley, Steve Balsis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurotrauma reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lindsay D NelsonDepartment of Neurosurgery and Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Brooke E MagnusDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA.
Nancy R TemkinDepartment of Neurological Surgery and Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sureyya DikmenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Geoffrey T ManleyDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Steve BalsisDepartment of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA.
Boston College · USMedical College of Wisconsin · USNeurological Surgery · USUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Improving Patient Classification and Outcome Measurement in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)R01NS110856 · NINDS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI NELSON, LINDSAY · 2019 to 2023
$3.0M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS110856
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was designed to determine how raw scores correspond between two alternative measures of functional recovery from traumatic brain injury (TBI), the Functional Status Examination (FSE) and the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE). Using data from 357 persons with moderate-severe TBI who participated in a large clinical trial, we performed item response theory analysis to characterize the relationship between functional ability measured by the FSE and GOSE at 6 months post-injury. Results revealed that raw scores for the FSE and GOSE can be linked, and a table is provided to translate scores from one instrument to the other. For example, a FSE score of 7 (on its 0-21 scale, where higher scores reflect more impairment) is equivalent to a GOSE score of 6 (where GOSE is scaled on an 8-point scale, with higher scores reflecting less impairment). These results allow clinicians or researchers who have a score for a person on one instrument to cross-reference it to a score on the other instrument. Importantly, this enables researchers to combine data sets where some persons only completed the GOSE and some only the FSE. In addition, an investigator could save participant time by eliminating one instrument from a battery of tests, yet still retain a score on that instrument for each participant. More broadly, the findings help anchor scores from these two instruments to the broader continuum of injury-related functional limitations.

Indexed as

functional limitationsFunctional Status ExaminationGlasgow Outcome Scale-Extendeditem response theoryoutcome measurement

Identifiers

PMID35403101
PMCPMC8985527
OpenAlexW4220889287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.