ArticleNeurology international2025
Reliability and Validity of the Lowenstein Communication Scale.
Article in Neurology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rehabilitation Outcomes in Patients Who Regained Consciousness.Neurology international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe Lowenstein Communication Scale (LCS) is a tool for the evaluation of communicative performance in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). This study investigated the reliability and validity of the LCS.
methodsWe evaluated 23 inpatients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) and 18 in a minimally conscious state (MCS), at admission to a Consciousness Rehabilitation Department and one month later. The evaluations included assessments of LCS by two raters, and of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) by one rater.
resultsTotal inter-rater agreement in LCS task scoring was found in 58-100% of the patients. Cohen's kappa values were >0.6 for most tasks. High correlations were found between the two raters on total scores and most subscales (r = 0.599-1.000,
conclusionsThe findings indicate that the LCS is reliable and valid, making it a valuable clinical and research assessment tool for patients with DOC.
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.