BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis of chronic disorders of consciousness remains one of the most difficult problems even for experienced clinicians. AIM: To evaluate the inter-expert consistency and capacity of the researcher-developed structural scale based on magnetic resonance imaging to differentiate chronic disorders of consciousness, named, DOC-MRIDS, on a larger sample of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with a clinically stable status diagnosed with consciousness disorders (vegetative state, n=32; minimally conscious state, n=28) were enrolled. The revised coma recovery scale (CRS-R) was included in the clinical assessment. All patients underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging with 3.0-T Siemens scanners including T2 and T1 sequences. Structural changes were assessed using the DOC-MRIDS scale and included the following features: diffuse cortical atrophy, ventricular enlargement, gyri dilatation, leukoaraiosis, brainstem and/or thalamic degeneration, corpus callosum degeneration, and focal corpus callosum lesions. A total score was calculated. Magnetic resonance imaging data were analyzed by three neuroradiologists, and inter-observer agreement (Krippendorf’s alpha) was assessed. RESULTS: A high inter-examiner agreement of the DOC-MRIDS scale score was found, with α=0.806 (95% confidence interval 0.757–0.849). The vegetative state group had a higher DOC-MRIDS score than the minimally conscious state group (p 0.005). A negative correlation was obtained between CRS-R and DOC-MRIDS scale scores (ρ=–0.457, p 0.0001), individual clinical scale domains, and magnetic resonance imaging features. CONCLUSION: When assessing structural changes in patients with chronic consciousness disorders, the use of the DOC-MRIDS scale helps differentiate the type of such disorders with sufficient specificity, sensitivity, and inter-rater agreement. This scale can be used in clinical practice as an additional differential diagnostic tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sergeeva et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: