Trial reportJournal of neurology2024
Effects of a scoring aid on glasgow coma score assessment and physicians' comprehension: a simulator-based randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Don't guess the GCS: a systems-based approach to safer neurological assessment in the emergency department.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Cardiac Simulator Technologies and Design for Medical Education and Auscultation Training: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Inter-rater Reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale Between Triage and Resuscitation Nurses After Standardized Training.Journal of nursing management · 2025Observational
- VEGF, TNF-α, and PCT efficiency for traumatic brain injury prognosis evaluation in the first 72 h.Journal of circulating biomarkersArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeExamining the impact of scoring aids on the accuracy of assessing the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in a standardized trauma scenario (primary outcome). Evaluating physicians' understanding of the GCS assessment and clinical application (secondary outcome). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized trial was performed at the simulator center of a Swiss tertiary academic medical hospital. Participants included intensivists, emergency physicians, internists, and neurologists. The setting involved a trauma patient portraying a GCS of 8 (eyes 1, verbal 2, motor 5). Participants were randomized to receiving or not receiving a scoring aid. Video/audio recordings of the assessments and questionnaires were analyzed by two investigators.
resultsAmong 109 participants, 55 received a scoring aid. Overall, 52% scored correctly (score interquartile range 7-8); 43% scored too low and 90% scored within a range of ± 1. A scoring aid increased accuracy (62% vs. 43%, p = 0.045) and participants' confidence, whilst decreasing assessment duration. Clinical experience further improved reliability. 89% found assessing a GCS of 8 most challenging, particularly with motor response evaluation (64%). 26% indicated tracheal intubation to be mandatory with a score of GCS ≤ 8.
conclusionsGCS assessment is improved by professional experience and a scoring aid, the use of which needs to be promoted in daily clinical practice. Frequent inaccuracy and misunderstanding regarding clinical applications may alter patient management and misguide treatment and prognosis.
trial registrationISRCTN registry (IDISRCTN12257237) https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12257237 Retrospectively registered (last amendment 08/22/2023).
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.