ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Differences in Coma Recovery Scale-Revised performance in an upright position versus lying position.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal Interference Stimulation of Centromedian-Parafascicular Complex in Disorders of Consciousness: A Pilot Study.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Aquatic Therapy as a Programmable Multisensory Environment for Arousal and Postural Control After Severe Acquired Brain Injury: A Perspective.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Detection of residual consciousness using EEG indicators related to rectal perception: protocol for a diagnostic accuracy study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study investigated the impact of patient positioning on behavioral assessment of consciousness in individuals with a disorder of consciousness (DoC) using the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). In this retrospective study, 1,470 CRS-R assessments were performed on 232 patients in four different positions: lying in bed (Bed), sitting at edge of mat (Mat), sitting in a wheelchair (Wheelchair), and standing (Standing), in an acute inpatient rehabilitation setting. A conditional random coefficients multi-level model was used to examine changes in the transformed CRS-R total unit (which converted the raw CRS-R total score to an equal-interval scale) across positions, accounting for repeated measurements within subjects and variability introduced by different raters. Transformed CRS-R total unit was significantly associated with assessment position. Compared to the Bed position (controlling age, gender, etiology, number of arousal protocol used, and days post-injury), patients assessed in the Wheelchair, Mat, and Standing positions had estimated 2.7-, 3.2-, and 3.5-unit increases in the transformed CRS-R total unit (
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.