↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Measuring scales used for assessment of patients with traumatic brain injury: multicenter studies

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Measuring scales used for assessment of patients with traumatic brain injury: multicenter studies
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s83551
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Ślusarz, Renata Jabłońska, Agnieszka Królikowska, Beata Haor, Ewa Barczykowska, Monika Biercewicz, Mariola Głowacka, Justyna Szrajda

Abstract

Application of adequate numeric scales is essential for assessment of a patient's condition. The scales most commonly used by the therapeutic team for assessment of a patient with traumatic brain injury (TBI) include deficit scales, functional scales, and scales assessing quality of life. The purpose of this study was to establish the relationships between the particular scales used for assessment of patients with TBI. This multicenter study included 159 patients with TBI. The direct observation technique was used. Two measurements were made (at hospital admission and discharge) using standardized assessment scales, ie, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), the Functional Capacity Scale (FCS), the Functional Index "Repty" (FIR), and the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Patients with mild impairment of consciousness were most numerous in the examined group at both admission and discharge, ie, 118 (78.8%) and 134 patients (89.3%), respectively. The mean score for functional capacity measured with the FCS was 34.41 points (71.7%) on the day of admission and 41.87 points (87.2%) on the day of discharge from hospital. A significant correlation was found between results obtained using the GCS and results on the FIR, on both the day of admission [R t(n-2) =7.612=0.530; P=0.00] and the day of discharge [R t(n-2) =8.998=0.595; P=0.00]. Further, a high correlation was found between the FCS and the FIR (r s= -0.854 on day of admission and r s= -0.840 on day of discharge). The majority of examined patients had mild impairment of consciousness. A moderate correlation was found between the GCS and the scales assessing activities of daily living. A high correlation was found between FCS and FIR, which may result from the similarities between the analyzed tools in the scope of their construction and application.

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 17%
Psychology 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2015.
All research outputs
#21,110,894
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,440
of 1,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,988
of 282,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#36
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.