Observational studyNursing in critical care2025
Inter-rater reliability in the assessment of consciousness in patients receiving palliative care in intensive care: A prospective cross sectional observational study.
Observational study in Nursing in critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Inter-rater reliability in the assessment of consciousness in patients receiving palliative care in intensive care: A prospective cross sectional observational study.Nursing in critical care · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is one of the methods that has validity for evaluating the consciousness levels of patients in the literature and is accepted by health authorities.
aimThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of GCS in intensive care patients receiving palliative care. STUDY
designA prospective cross sectional observational study. The study was conducted in a general intensive care unit with 20 beds with patients receiving palliative care. In the unit, 18 nurses worked in two shifts, day and night. Each patient's primary palliative care nurse and two additional researchers were given one minute to independently record the patient's GCS total and subscale scores. All observations were completed within 5 min as there could be significant changes in the patient's GCS score during observations.
resultsA total of 258 assessments were completed. For the GCS total scoring, a moderate agreement was found between palliative care nurses and the first researcher-observer (49.0%) and also between palliative care nurses and the second researcher-observer (47.7%). In addition, there was a substantial agreement between the first and second researchers (78.9%) and also between all observers (61.5%) (all p = .001).
conclusionsAlthough there was a near-perfect agreement between the two researcher-observers, we found only moderate agreement among all observers (palliative care nurses and two researcher-observers) in the evaluation of GCS total and subscale scores. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: We found that lack of knowledge and training on the standardized use of GCS is still a problem for palliative and intensive care units. Because of the diversity of patients requiring GCS assessment in palliative care units, refresher training programs and hands-on workshops on consciousness assessment should be organized regularly for more experienced nurses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.