PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to explore the concurrent validity, inter-rater agreement and diagnostic sensitivity of a French adaptation of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) as compared to other coma scales such as the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness scale (FOUR) and the Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM). RESEARCH DESIGN: Multi-centric prospective study. METHOD AND PROCEDURES: To test concurrent validity and diagnostic sensitivity, the four behavioural scales were administered in a randomized order in 77 vegetative and minimally conscious patients. Twenty-four clinicians with different professional backgrounds, levels of expertise and CRS-R experience were recruited to assess inter-rater agreement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Good concurrent validity was obtained between the CRS-R and the three other standardized behavioural scales. Inter-rater reliability for the CRS-R total score and sub-scores was good, indicating that the scale yields reproducible findings across examiners and does not appear to be systematically biased by profession, level of expertise or CRS-R experience. Finally, the CRS-R demonstrated a significantly higher sensitivity to detect MCS patients, as compared to the GCS, the FOUR and the WHIM. CONCLUSION: The results show that the French version of the CRS-R is a valid and sensitive scale which can be used in severely brain damaged patients by all members of the medical staff.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schnakers et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: