Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (731 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
A scale that assesses the outcome of serious craniocerebral injuries, based on the level of regained social functioning.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Outcome Scale, Glasgow; Scale, Glasgow Outcome.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Trauma Severity Indices
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 2,607 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Glasgow Outcome Scale” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 606 of them (23.2%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 1,266 records.
Reviews account for 146 records (5.6%) and meta-analyses for 50. Randomized controlled trials number 162 (6.2%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 767 |
| 2010-2019 | 1,266 |
| 2020 onward | 606 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 146 | 5.6% |
| Meta-analyses | 50 | 1.9% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 162 | 6.2% |
Method: PubMed query "Glasgow Outcome Scale"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in clinical research
Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A Manual for the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Interview | 2021 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 266 | cc by PMID 33740873 · DOI · PMC8390784 |
| Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury | 2006 | Systematic review Design not recorded in structured metadata | 232 | cc by PMID 17105661 · DOI · PMC1657003 |
| Evaluation of an inflammation-based prognostic score (GPS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer | 2006 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 173 | cc by PMID 16404432 · DOI · PMC2361117 |
| Analysis of the Relationship between Early Clinical Factors and Glasgow Outcome Scale in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 0 | cc by PMID 42668428 · DOI · PMC13526225 |
A Manual for the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Interview [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- The Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) has become one of the most widely used outcome instruments to assess global disability and recovery after traumatic brain injury.
- Closing excerpt
- Finally, we discuss the properties of the GOSE, including strengths and limitations, and outline recommendations for assessor training, accreditation, and monitoring.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (139 words)
The Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) has become one of the most widely used outcome instruments to assess global disability and recovery after traumatic brain injury. Achieving consistency in the application of the assessment remains a challenge, particularly in multi-center studies involving many assessors. We present a manual for the GOSE interview that is designed to support both single- and multi-center studies and promote inter-rater agreement. Many patients fall clearly into a particular category; however, patients may have outcomes that are on the borderline between adjacent categories, and cases can present other challenges for assessment. The Manual includes the general principles of assessment, advice on administering each section of the GOSE interview, and guidance on "borderline" and "difficult" cases. Finally, we discuss the properties of the GOSE, including strengths and limitations, and outline recommendations for assessor training, accreditation, and monitoring.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33740873 · DOI · PMC8390784
Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability world-wide.
- Closing excerpt
- Finally because only a few are developed using populations from low and middle income countries, where most of trauma occurs, the generalizability to these setting is limited.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (297 words)
BackgroundTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability world-wide. The ability to accurately predict patient outcome after TBI has an important role in clinical practice and research. Prognostic models are statistical models that combine two or more items of patient data to predict clinical outcome. They may improve predictions in TBI patients. Multiple prognostic models for TBI have accumulated for decades but none of them is widely used in clinical practice. The objective of this systematic review is to critically assess existing prognostic models for TBI METHODS: Studies that combine at least two variables to predict any outcome in patients with TBI were searched in PUBMED and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently examined titles, abstracts and assessed whether each met the pre-defined inclusion criteria.ResultsA total of 53 reports including 102 models were identified. Almost half (47%) were derived from adult patients. Three quarters of the models included less than 500 patients. Most of the models (93%) were from high income countries populations. Logistic regression was the most common analytical strategy to derived models (47%). In relation to the quality of the derivation models (n:66), only 15% reported less than 10% pf loss to follow-up, 68% did not justify the rationale to include the predictors, 11% conducted an external validation and only 19% of the logistic models presented the results in a clinically user-friendly wayConclusionPrognostic models are frequently published but they are developed from small samples of patients, their methodological quality is poor and they are rarely validated on external populations. Furthermore, they are not clinically practical as they are not presented to physicians in a user-friendly way. Finally because only a few are developed using populations from low and middle income countries, where most of trauma occurs, the generalizability to these setting is limited.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 17105661 · DOI · PMC1657003
Evaluation of an inflammation-based prognostic score (GPS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Prediction of outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains problematical.
- Closing excerpt
- The presence of a systemic inflammatory response (the GPS) appears to be a useful indicator of poor outcome independent of treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (145 words)
Prediction of outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains problematical. The present study evaluated the value of an inflammation-based score (Glasgow Prognostic Score, GPS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The GPS was constructed as follows: patients with both an elevated C-reactive protein (>10 mg l(-1)) and hypoalbuminaemia (<35 g l(-1)) were allocated a score of 2. Patients in whom only one or none of these biochemical abnormalities was present were allocated a score of 1 or 0, respectively. In total, 96 patients were studied. During follow-up 51 patients died of their cancer. On multivariate analysis of the GPS and treatment received, only the GPS (HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.45-3.52, P<0.001) remained significantly associated with cancer-specific survival. The presence of a systemic inflammatory response (the GPS) appears to be a useful indicator of poor outcome independent of treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 16404432 · DOI · PMC2361117
Analysis of the Relationship between Early Clinical Factors and Glasgow Outcome Scale in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the association between early clinical factors and the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
- Closing excerpt
- Time from injury to surgery emerged as a potentially modifiable factor in this cohort, suggesting that minimizing delays may improve outcomes.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (150 words)
ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the association between early clinical factors and the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 98 TBI patients who underwent emergency surgery between January 2021 and January 2024. Based on GOS scores at 6 months post-surgery, patients were classified into a favorable outcome group (GOS ≥ 4, defined as moderate disability or good recovery, n = 58) and an unfavorable outcome group (GOS ResultsSignificant intergroup differences were observed in age, time from injury to surgery, bleeding site, midline shift, Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score at admission, blood glucose level, and D-dimer level (all p ConclusionEarly clinical factors, including age, time to surgery, GCS score, blood glucose, and D-dimer level, independently influence GOS in TBI patients. Time from injury to surgery emerged as a potentially modifiable factor in this cohort, suggesting that minimizing delays may improve outcomes.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42668428 · DOI · PMC13526225
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article The Glasgow Outcome Scale - 40 years of application and refinement [5]
- Research article Using a cost-benefit analysis to estimate outcomes of a clinical treatment guideline: testing theBrain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury [6]
- Research article A systematic review finds methodological improvements necessary for prognostic models in determining traumatic brain injury outcomes [7]
- Research article A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Employed in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH) Clinical Research [8]
- Research article Handling of Missing Outcome Data in Traumatic Brain Injury Research: A Systematic Review [9]
- Research article The Association Between Apolipoprotein E and Functional Outcome After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Meta-Analysis [10]
References
- Wilson L, Boase K, Nelson LD, Temkin NR, Giacino JT, Markowitz AJ, et al.. A Manual for the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Interview. . 2021. PMID 33740873 · DOI · PMC8390784
- Perel P, Edwards P, Wentz R, Roberts I. Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. . 2006. PMID 17105661 · DOI · PMC1657003
- Al Murri AM, Bartlett JM, Canney PA, Doughty JC, Wilson C, McMillan DC. Evaluation of an inflammation-based prognostic score (GPS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. . 2006. PMID 16404432 · DOI · PMC2361117
- Luo W, Cheng X, Ying W. Analysis of the Relationship between Early Clinical Factors and Glasgow Outcome Scale in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury. . 2026. PMID 42668428 · DOI · PMC13526225
- McMillan T, Wilson L, Ponsford J, Levin H, Teasdale G, Bond M. The Glasgow Outcome Scale - 40 years of application and refinement. Nat Rev Neurol. 2016. PMID 27418377 · DOI
- Faul M, Wald MM, Rutland-Brown W, Sullivent EE, Sattin RW. Using a cost-benefit analysis to estimate outcomes of a clinical treatment guideline: testing theBrain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma. 2007. PMID 18212649 · DOI
- Mushkudiani NA, Hukkelhoven CW, Hernández AV, Murray GD, Choi SC, Maas AI, et al.. A systematic review finds methodological improvements necessary for prognostic models in determining traumatic brain injury outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008. PMID 18313557 · DOI
- Andersen CR, Fitzgerald E, Delaney A, Finfer S. A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Employed in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH) Clinical Research. Neurocrit Care. 2019. PMID 29951958 · DOI
- Richter S, Stevenson S, Newman T, Wilson L, Menon DK, Maas AIR, et al.. Handling of Missing Outcome Data in Traumatic Brain Injury Research: A Systematic Review. J Neurotrauma. 2019. PMID 31062649 · DOI · PMC6744946
- Li L, Bao Y, He S, Wang G, Guan Y, Ma D, et al.. The Association Between Apolipoprotein E and Functional Outcome After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Meta-Analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015. PMID 26579811 · DOI · PMC4652820
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.