Affiliation:
1. Research Center of Neurology
2. Research Center of Neurology; Lomonosov Moscow State University
3. University of L’Aquila, Neurological Institute
Abstract
INTRODUCTION An increase in the survival rate of patients with severe brain injuries of various origins determines the relevance of the search for approaches to assessing the prognosis of changes in the state of patients with chronic disorders of consciousness (CDC). Concomitant diseases are predictors of the recovery of consciousness and functional independence of patients with CDC. To assess the impact of the level of comorbidity on the prognosis of the patient state, the Comorbidities Coma Scale (CoCoS) is used abroad. However, the lack of a Russian-language version of this scale limits the practical and scientific areas of work with this category of patients.THE AIM of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the developed Russian version of the Comorbidities Coma Scale (CoCoS).MATERIALS AND METHODS As part of the validation study, an assessment of psychometric properties (reliability, validity, sensitivity) was performed on a group of 52 adult patients with traumatic (18/52) and non-traumatic (34/52) brain damage.RESULTS High levels of validity and reliability were obtained (the Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient r=0.98 (p<0.0001), Cronbach’s alpha α=0.73 (p<0.001), Cohen’s kappa κ=0.72 (p<0.0001)). However, when evaluating the CoCoS sensitivity, there were no statistically significant changes in the parameters (p=0.316).CONCLUSION In the present study, a sufficient level of psychometric properties of the Russian-language version of the CoCoS was obtained, which opens up the possibility of a quantitative assessment of comorbidities in unresponsive patients both in scientific research and clinical practice. The scale is available for download on the website of the Group for Validation of International Scales and Questionnaires of the Research Center of Neurology.
Publisher
The Scientific and Practical Society of Emergency Medicine Physicians
Reference20 articles.
1. Posner MI. Attentional Networks and the Semantics of Consciousness. Front Psychol. 2012;3:64. PMID: 22416239 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00064
2. Piradov MA, Suponeva NA, Voznyuk IA, Kondratyev AN, Shchegolev AV, Belkin AA, et al. Chronic disorders of consciousness: terminology and diagnostic criteria. The results of the first meeting of the Russian Working Group for Chronic Disorders of Consciousness. Annals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology. 2020;14(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.25692/ACEN.2020.1.1
3. Legostaeva L, Mochalova E, Poydasheva A, Kremneva E, Sergeev D, Ryabinkina J, et al. Misdiagnosis in doc patients: Russian experience. J Neurol Sci. 2017;381(Suppl):756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2017.08.2134
4. Laureys S., Celesia G.G., Cohadon F, Lavrijsen J, León-Carrión J, Sannita WG, et al. Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: a new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):2–5. PMID: 21040571 https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-68
5. Giacino JT, Katz DI, Schiff ND, Whyte J, Ashman EJ, Ashwal S, et al. Practice guideline update recommendations summary: Disorders of consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Neurology. 2018;91(10):50–460. PMID: 30089618 https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005926