A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Clinimetric study and review of the Reaction Level Scale. | LitMetric

Objectives: Although the Reaction Level Scale (RLS) is still used for the assessment of the level of consciousness in distinct centers, its clinical characteristics and significance have been incompletely researched. In the current study, the clinimetric properties, the prognostic value, and the impact of the raters' background on the application of the RLS, in comparison with the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), are investigated.

Materials And Methods: A systematic review on the available clinical evidence for the RLS was first carried out. Next, the RLS was translated into Greek, and patients with neurosurgical pathologies in need of consciousness monitoring were independently assessed with both RLS and GCS, by four raters (two consultants, one resident, and one nurse) within one hour. Interrater reliability, construct validity, and predictive value (mortality and poor outcome, at discharge and at 6 months) were evaluated.

Results: Literature review retrieved 9 clinimetric studies related to the RLS, most of low quality, indicating that the scale has not been thoroughly studied. Both versions of the RLS (original and modified) showed high interrater reliability (κ >0.80 for all pairs of raters), construct validity (Spearman's p > .90 for all raters), and prognostic value (areas under the curve >0.85 for all raters and outcomes). However, except for broader patients' coverage, it failed to show any advantage over the GCS.

Conclusions: The RLS has not succeeded in showing any advantage over the GCS in terms of reliability and validity. Available evidence cannot justify its use in clinical practice as a substitute to the widely applied GCS.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ane.13604DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reaction level
8
level scale
8
rls
8
interrater reliability
8
construct validity
8
clinimetric study
4
study review
4
review reaction
4
scale
4
scale objectives
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!