2008
DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000316857.80632.9a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of an Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Grading Scale in 1532 Consecutive Patients

Abstract: The GCS grading system is more strongly associated with outcomes than either the Hunt and Hess or World Federation of Neurological Societies scales, and it is an equivalent to a slightly better predictor of Glasgow Outcome Scale outcomes. Its simplicity, proven inter-rater reliability, and wide level of familiarity among health care personnel render the GCS grading system a superior grading scale for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage severity, warranting its consideration for universal use.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The DCI rate (5.8%) and poor .5%) of our study were also consistent with the past review reported (DCI: 0-9.6%; mRS 3-6: 0-12.6%) [17]. Second, there were also other studies that used different dichotomization of mRS or Glasgow Outcome Scale to assess the outcome, which may also introduce some bias to the performance of scales [18]. To limit this bias, we used two mRS dichotomization to define the poor outcome and increase the comparability to other studies.…”
Section: Limitationssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The DCI rate (5.8%) and poor .5%) of our study were also consistent with the past review reported (DCI: 0-9.6%; mRS 3-6: 0-12.6%) [17]. Second, there were also other studies that used different dichotomization of mRS or Glasgow Outcome Scale to assess the outcome, which may also introduce some bias to the performance of scales [18]. To limit this bias, we used two mRS dichotomization to define the poor outcome and increase the comparability to other studies.…”
Section: Limitationssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…31 Although some other scales have shown relatively better interobserver agreement and a more graduated relationship to outcome than the WFNS scale, they were not better than the latter in the capacity to differentiate patients by outcome and are less popular than the WFNS scale. 8,35,36,42 Some researchers have also argued about the optimal time point for assessing neurological status for purposes of prognostication, with different time points proposed in the literature, including clinical assessment soon after injury, 4 and after neurological resuscitation. 12 Third, because the study is not population based, there is the potential that we systematically underestimated the magnitude of prognostic associations, as patients who died prior to hospital admission were not accounted for.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the first 48 h following the ictus, all enrolled patients underwent cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) sampling for analysis. The primary endpoints were early mortality occurring by day 15, and poor outcome defined as mortality or disability with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤10 by day 30 [12]. Glasgow Coma Scale assessments are routinely performed every 2 h on all service patients.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%