ArticleNeuroSci2025
Clinical Validation of the SECONDs Tool for Evaluating Disorders of Consciousness in Argentina.
Article in NeuroSci, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) is the gold standard for diagnosing chronic disorders of consciousness (DoC); however, its clinical utility is limited by lengthy administration and the need for specialized training. The Simplified Evaluation of Disorders of Consciousness (SECONDs) provides a faster and more user-friendly alternative.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Argentine adaptation of the SECONDs scale in adults with chronic DoC due to acquired brain injury.
methodsTwenty-nine patients were evaluated over two consecutive days by three blinded raters. On day one, rater A administered the SECONDs (A1) and rater B administered the CRS-R (B) to assess concurrent validity. On day two, rater A repeated the SECONDs (A2), and rater C performed an additional SECONDs assessment (C), permitting evaluation of intra-rater (A1 vs. A2) and inter-rater (A vs. C) reliability.
resultsThe SECONDs demonstrated excellent intra-rater (ICC = 0.98) and inter-rater (ICC = 0.86) reliability. Concurrent validity with the CRS-R was strong (r = 0.73,
conclusionThe Argentine SECONDs is a valid, reliable, and efficient tool for the clinical assessment of DoC patients in rehabilitation settings.
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.