Moskopp D, Stähle C, Wassmann H
Department of Neurosurgery, University of Muenster, Fed. Rep. of Germany.
Neurosurg Rev. 1995;18(4):253-7. doi: 10.1007/BF00383876.
The Glasgow Coma Scale is probably the most common grading scale in neurotraumatology all over the world. Its validity concerning severity and prognosis of the injury has been established in the Anglo-American literature. Data derived from the German rescue system, however is different from the Anglo-American in some respects. The analysis of a well-defined group of German trauma patients with moderate and severe head injuries (n = 299) shows that low Glasgow Coma Scores (GCS 3-6) established during the first two posttraumatic days must not correspond directly to the outcome after one year. Especially for the best Glasgow Coma Score during the day after the injury, GCS 4 had a poorer collective long-term prognosis than GCS 3. Therefore, German data from head injury studies based on the Glasgow Coma Scoring are difficult to compare to those cited in the Anglo-American literature. Any statistical analysis of a so called "ranking scale" which does not satisfy its own claims under special conditions is difficult.
格拉斯哥昏迷量表可能是全球神经创伤学中最常用的分级量表。其在损伤严重程度和预后方面的有效性已在英美的文献中得到证实。然而，来自德国救援系统的数据在某些方面与英美的不同。对一组明确的德国中重度颅脑损伤患者（n = 299）的分析表明，创伤后前两天测得的低格拉斯哥昏迷评分（GCS 3 - 6）不一定直接对应一年后的预后。特别是对于受伤后当天的最佳格拉斯哥昏迷评分，GCS 4的总体长期预后比GCS 3更差。因此，基于格拉斯哥昏迷评分的德国颅脑损伤研究数据很难与英美的文献引用数据进行比较。对一个在特殊条件下不能满足自身要求的所谓“排名量表”进行任何统计分析都是困难的。
