ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2024
Interpreting Change in Disorders of Consciousness Using the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised.
Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation for disorders of consciousness: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis based on sham-controlled randomized trials.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Prediction models for functional outcomes in prolonged disorders of consciousness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Promoting Consciousness Recovery in Patients with Acquired Brain Injury Through Multimodal Sensory Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Median Nerve and Auricular Stimulation.Neurocritical care · 2026Trial
- Effect and mechanism of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of angular gyrus on patients with consciousness disorder.Frontiers in neurologyTrial
- Updates in Management of Acute Disorders of Consciousness After Traumatic Injury.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Prospective Evaluation of Icu Neurostimulant Use for Acute Brain Injury (Prevail): A Pragmatic Observational Cohort Study.Research square · 2026Article
- Multidimensional EEG mechanisms and explainable prediction of responsiveness to posterior parietal HD-tDCS in chronic disorders of consciousness.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Compassionate-use of autologous, bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in a chronic anoxic encephalopathy: a case report.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2026Article
- Prospective validation protocol for artificial intelligence-assisted standardization of Coma Recovery Scale-Revised scores using electroencephalography and clinical data in disorders of consciousness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Behavioral Fluctuation in Disorders of Consciousness: A Retrospective Analysis.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2025Observational
- [Brain-computer interface technology and its applications for patients with disorders of consciousness].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025Review
- Differences in Coma Recovery Scale-Revised performance in an upright position versus lying position.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Homeostatic plasticity in patients with disorders of consciousness detected by combined stimulation: a study protocol.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Common Data Elements for Disorders of Consciousness: Recommendations from the Working Group on Outcomes and Endpoints.Neurocritical care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to differentiate clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration from normal fluctuations in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) following severe brain injury. We computed indices of responsiveness for the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) using data from a clinical trial of 180 participants with DoC. We used CRS-R scores from baseline (enrollment in a clinical trial) and a 4-week follow-up assessment period for these calculations. To improve precision, we transformed ordinal CRS-R total scores (0-23 points) to equal-interval measures on a 0-100 unit scale using Rasch Measurement theory. Using the 0-100 unit total Rasch measures, we calculated distribution-based 0.5 standard deviation (SD) minimal clinically important difference, minimal detectable change using 95% confidence intervals, and conditional minimal detectable change using 95% confidence intervals. The distribution-based minimal clinically important difference evaluates group-level changes, whereas the minimal detectable change values evaluate individual-level changes. The minimal clinically important difference and minimal detectable change are derived using the overall variability across total measures at baseline and 4 weeks. The conditional minimal detectable change is generated for each possible pair of CRS-R Rasch person measures and accounts for variation in standard error across the scale. We applied these indices to determine the proportions of participants who made a change beyond measurement error within each of the two subgroups, based on treatment arm (amantadine hydrochloride or placebo) or categorization of baseline Rasch person measure to states of consciousness (i.e., unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious state). We compared the proportion of participants in each treatment arm who made a change according to the minimal detectable change and determined whether they also changed to another state of consciousness. CRS-R indices of responsiveness (using the 0-100 transformed scale) were as follows: 0.5SD minimal clinically important difference = 9 units, minimal detectable change = 11 units, and the conditional minimal detectable change ranged from 11 to 42 units. For the amantadine and placebo groups, 70% and 58% of participants showed change beyond measurement error using the minimal detectable change, respectively. For the unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious state groups, 54% and 69% of participants changed beyond measurement error using the minimal detectable change, respectively. Among 115 participants (64% of the total sample) who made a change beyond measurement error, 29 participants (25%) did not change state of consciousness. CRS-R indices of responsiveness can support clinicians and researchers in discerning when behavioral changes in patients with DoC exceed measurement error. Notably, the minimal detectable change can support the detection of patients who make a "true" change within or across states of consciousness. Our findings highlight that the continued use of ordinal scores may result in incorrect inferences about the degree and relevance of a change score.
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.