Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38613812›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2024

Interpreting Change in Disorders of Consciousness Using the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised.

Jennifer A Weaver, Alison M Cogan, Allan J Kozlowski, Patricia Grady-Dominguez, Katherine A O'Brien, Yelena G Bodien, James Graham, Stephen Aichele, Paige Ford, Trisha Kot and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Behavioral Fluctuation in Disorders of Consciousness: A Retrospective Analysis.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2025
    Observational
  12. [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 · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

13 authors.

Jennifer A WeaverDepartment of Occupational Therapy, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3964-1441
Alison M CoganMrs. T. H. Chan Division of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Allan J KozlowskiMary Free Bed Rehabilitation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.
Patricia Grady-DominguezDepartment of Occupational Therapy, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5734-8281
Katherine A O'BrienTIRR Memorial Hermann, Houston, Texas, USA.
Yelena G BodienDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4858-2903
James GrahamDepartment of Occupational Therapy, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Stephen AicheleDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Paige FordLived Experience Consultants, Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Trisha KotLived Experience Consultants, Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Theresa L Bender PapeDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Trudy MallinsonDepartment of Clinical Research and Leadership, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Joseph T GiacinoDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7916-9698

Funding

NCATS NIH HHS L30 TR004282
6 · The paper itself

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

Consciousness DisordersRecovery of FunctionAdultAgedBrain InjuriesComaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinimal Clinically Important Differenceassessment toolsoutcome measurestraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID38613812
PMCPMC11386986

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.