UpToDate: Edinburgh visual gait score

Edinburgh visual gait score

Complex gait test analysis systems are not generally available worldwide, and no simple system of assessing gait by observation has been validated specifically for use in patients with cerebral palsy.

Read et al., developed a visual gait analysis score for use in cerebral palsy. Videotaped sequences of patients were recorded before and after surgery as part of a three-dimensional gait study using a Vicon (Oxford, U.K.) gait analysis system. The score demonstrated good intraobserver and interobserver reliability. The numeric values of the score elements correlated well with the measurements obtained from instrumented gait analysis for the same patients, and the score was able to detect postoperative change 1).

EVGS can be a supportive tool that adds quantitative data instead of only qualitative assessment to a video only gait evaluation 2).

Robinson et al., propose an MCID value of 2.4 for the EVGS; representing the improvement in gait score after surgery that is likely to reflect a clinical improvement in function. This MCID is closely related to other studies defining post-operative improvements in kinematic data (GPS) and may offer guidance to post-surgical changes that might reasonably be expected to either improve or prevent deteriorating function 3).

36 children (age 4-13 y) with spastic diplegia (gross motor classification system level I (n=14), II (n=15) and III (n=7) were included retrospectively from the database of the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam. Children underwent Selective dorsal rhizotomy for spastic diplegia (SDR) between January 1999 and May 2011. Patients were included if they received clinical gait analysis before and five years post-SDR, age >4 years at time of SDR and if brain MRI-scan was available.

Overall gait quality was assessed with Edinburgh visual gait score (EVGS), before and five years after SDR. In addition, knee and ankle angles at initial contact and midstance were evaluated. To identify predictors for gait improvement, several factors were evaluated including: functional mobility level (GMFCS), presence of white matter abnormalities on brain-MRI, and selective motor control during gait (synergy analysis).

Overall gait quality improved after SDR, with a large variation between patients. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that worse score on EVGS and better GMFCS were independently related to gait improvement. Gait improved more in children with GMFCS I & II compared to III. No differences were observed between children with or without white matter abnormalities on brain MRI. Selective motor control during gait was predictive for improvement of knee angle at initial contact and midstance, but not for EVGS.

Functional mobility level and baseline gait quality are both important factors to predict gait outcomes after SDR. If candidates are well selected, SDR can be a successful intervention to improve gait both in children with brain MRI abnormalities as well as other causes of spastic diplegia 4).


Read HS, Hazlewood ME, Hillman SJ, Prescott RJ, Robb JE. Edinburgh visual gait score for use in cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 2003 May-Jun;23(3):296-301. PubMed PMID: 12724590.

Del Pilar Duque Orozco M, Abousamra O, Church C, Lennon N, Henley J, Rogers KJ, Sees JP, Connor J, Miller F. Reliability and validity of Edinburgh visual gait score as an evaluation tool for children with cerebral palsy. Gait Posture. 2016 Sep;49:14-18. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.06.017. Epub 2016 Jun 15. PubMed PMID: 27344448.

Robinson LW, Clement ND, Herman J, Gaston MS. The Edinburgh visual gait score – The minimal clinically important difference. Gait Posture. 2017 Mar;53:25-28. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.12.030. Epub 2017 Jan 3. PubMed PMID: 28073083.

Oudenhoven LM, van der Krogt MM, Romei M, van Schie PEM, van de Pol LA, van Ouwerkerk WJR, Harlaar Prof J, Buizer AI. Factors associated with long-term improvement of gait after selective dorsal rhizotomy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Jul 4. pii: S0003-9993(18)30442-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.06.016. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29981315.

Update: Pupil Reactivity Score

Pupil Reactivity Score

The GCS Pupils Score (GCS-P) was described by Paul Brennan, Gordon Murray and Graham Teasdale in 2018 as a strategy to combine the two key indicators of the severity of traumatic brain injury into a single simple index.

How do I calculate the GCS-P?

The GCS-P is calculated by subtracting the Pupil Reactivity Score (PRS) from the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) total score:


The Pupil Reactivity Score is calculated as follows.

see more at http://www.glasgowcomascale.org/what-is-gcs-p/

Information about early GCS scores, pupil responses, late outcomes on the Glasgow Outcome Scale, and mortality were obtained at the individual patient level by reviewing data from the CRASH (Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head Injury; n = 9,045) study and the IMPACT(International Mission for Prognosis and Clinical Trials in TBI; n = 6855) database. These data were combined into a pooled data set for the main analysis.

Methods of combining the Glasgow Coma Scale and pupil reaction data varied in complexity from using a simple arithmetic score (GCS score [range 3-15] minus the number of nonreacting pupils [0, 1, or 2]), which Brennan et al., called the GCS Pupils score (GCS-P; range 1-15), to treating each factor as a separate categorical variable. The content of information about patient outcome in each of these models was evaluated using Nagelkerke R2.

Separately, the GCS score and pupil response were each related to outcome. Adding information about the pupil response to the GCS score increased the information yield. The performance of the simple GCS-P was similar to the performance of more complex methods of evaluating traumatic brain damage. The relationship between decreases in the GCS-P and deteriorating outcome was seen across the complete range of possible scores. The additional 2 lowest points offered by the GCS-Pupils scale (GCS-P 1 and 2) extended the information about injury severity from a mortality rate of 51% and an unfavorable outcome rate of 70% at GCS score 3 to a mortality rate of 74% and an unfavorable outcome rate of 90% at GCS-P 1. The paradoxical finding that GCS score 4 was associated with a worse outcome than GCS score 3 was not seen when using the GCS-P.

A simple arithmetic combination of the GCS score and pupillary response, the GCS-P, extends the information provided about patient outcome to an extent comparable to that obtained using more complex methods. The greater range of injury severities that are identified and the smoothness of the stepwise pattern of outcomes across the range of scores may be useful in evaluating individual patients and identifying patient subgroups. The GCS-P may be a useful platform onto which information about other key prognostic features can be added in a simple format likely to be useful in clinical practice 1).


Brennan PM, Murray GD, Teasdale GM. Simplifying the use of prognostic information in traumatic brain injury. Part 1: The GCS-Pupils score: an extended index of clinical severity. J Neurosurg. 2018 Jun;128(6):1612-1620. doi: 10.3171/2017.12.JNS172780. Epub 2018 Apr 10. PubMed PMID: 29631516.

Update: Unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score

Unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score

see also PHASES score.
The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score (UIATS) was published in April 2015 as a multidisciplinary consensus regarding treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA).
Etminan et al. endeavored to develop an unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score (UIATS) model that includes and quantifies key factors involved in clinical decision-making in the management of UIAs and to assess agreement for this model among specialists in Unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) management and research.
An international multidisciplinary (neurosurgery, neuroradiology, neurology, clinical epidemiology) group of 69 specialists was convened to develop and validate the UIATS model using a Delphi consensus. For internal (39 panel members involved in identification of relevant features) and external validation (30 independent external reviewers), 30 selected UIA cases were used to analyze agreement with UIATS management recommendations based on a 5-point Likert scale (5 indicating strong agreement). Interrater agreement (IRA) was assessed with standardized coefficients of dispersion (vr*) (vr* = 0 indicating excellent agreement and vr* = 1 indicating poor agreement).
The UIATS accounts for 29 key factors in UIA management. Agreement with UIATS (mean Likert scores) was 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-4.3) per reviewer for both reviewer cohorts; agreement per case was 4.3 (95% CI 4.1-4.4) for panel members and 4.5 (95% CI 4.3-4.6) for external reviewers (p = 0.017). Mean Likert scores were 4.2 (95% CI 4.1-4.3) for interventional reviewers (n = 56) and 4.1 (95% CI 3.9-4.4) for noninterventional reviewers (n = 12) (p = 0.290). Overall IRA (vr*) for both cohorts was 0.026 (95% CI 0.019-0.033).
This novel UIA decision guidance study captures an excellent consensus among highly informed individuals on UIA management, irrespective of their underlying specialty. Clinicians can use the UIATS as a comprehensive mechanism for indicating how a large group of specialists might manage an individual patient with a UIA 1)

A tertiary center with focus on vascular neurosurgery, aimed to investigate whether there treatment decision-making in patients with UIA has been in accordance with the published UIATS. A retrospective analysis of patients admitted to the center with UIA was performed. UIATS was applied to all identified UIA. Three decision groups were defined: (a) UIATS favoring treatment, (b) UIATS favoring observation, and © UIATS inconclusive. These results were then compared to our clinical decisions. Spearman’s rank-order correlation (ρ) was run to determine the relationship between the UIATS and our clinical decisions. Cases of discrepancies between UIATS and our clinical decisions were then examined for complications, defined as periprocedural adverse events in treated aneurysms, or aneurysm rupture in untreated aneurysms. Ninety-three patients with 147 UIA were included. A total of 118/147 (80.3%) UIA were treated. In 70/118 (59.3%), UIATS favored treatment, in 18/118 (15.3%), it was inconclusive, and in 30/118 (25.4%), it favored observation. A total of 29/147 (19.7%) UIA were not treated. In 15/29 (51.7%), UIATS favored observation, in 9/29 (31%), it favored treatment, and in 5/29 (17.2%), it was inconclusive (ρ = 0.366, p < 0.01). Discrepancies between UIATS and our clinical decisions did not correlate with complications (ρ = 0.034, p = 0.714). Our analysis shows that our more intuitive clinical decision-making has been in line with UIATS. Our treatment decisions did not correlate with an increased rate of complications 2).

The purpose of the study of Ravindra et al. was to compare the unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score (UIATS) recommendations with the real-world experience in a quaternary academic medical center with a high volume of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs).
All patients with UIAs evaluated during a 3-year period were included. All factors included in the UIATS were abstracted, and patients were scored using the UIATS. Patients were categorized in a contingency table assessing UIATS recommendation versus real-world treatment decision. The authors calculated the percentage of misclassification, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS A total of 221 consecutive patients with UIAs met the inclusion criteria: 69 (31%) patients underwent treatment and 152 (69%) did not. Fifty-nine (27%) patients had a UIATS between -2 and 2, which does not offer a treatment recommendation, leaving 162 (73%) patients with a UIATS treatment recommendation. The UIATS was significantly associated with treatment (p < 0.001); however, the sensitivity, specificity, and percentage of misclassification were 49%, 80%, and 28%, respectively. Notably, 51% of patients for whom treatment would be recommended by the UIATS did not undergo treatment in the real-world cohort and 20% of patients for whom conservative management would be recommended by UIATS had intervention. The area under the ROC curve was 0.646.
Compared with the authors’ experience, the UIATS recommended overtreatment of UIAs. Although the UIATS could be used as a screening tool, individualized treatment recommendations based on consultation with a cerebrovascular specialist are necessary. Further validation with longitudinal data on rupture rates of UIAs is needed before widespread use 3).

Etminan N, Brown RD Jr, Beseoglu K, Juvela S, Raymond J, Morita A, Torner JC, Derdeyn CP, Raabe A, Mocco J, Korja M, Abdulazim A, Amin-Hanjani S, Al-Shahi Salman R, Barrow DL, Bederson J, Bonafe A, Dumont AS, Fiorella DJ, Gruber A, Hankey GJ, Hasan DM, Hoh BL, Jabbour P, Kasuya H, Kelly ME, Kirkpatrick PJ, Knuckey N, Koivisto T, Krings T, Lawton MT, Marotta TR, Mayer SA, Mee E, Pereira VM, Molyneux A, Morgan MK, Mori K, Murayama Y, Nagahiro S, Nakayama N, Niemelä M, Ogilvy CS, Pierot L, Rabinstein AA, Roos YB, Rinne J, Rosenwasser RH, Ronkainen A, Schaller K, Seifert V, Solomon RA, Spears J, Steiger HJ, Vergouwen MD, Wanke I, Wermer MJ, Wong GK, Wong JH, Zipfel GJ, Connolly ES Jr, Steinmetz H, Lanzino G, Pasqualin A, Rüfenacht D, Vajkoczy P, McDougall C, Hänggi D, LeRoux P, Rinkel GJ, Macdonald RL. The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus. Neurology. 2015 Sep 8;85(10):881-9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001891. Epub 2015 Aug 14. PubMed PMID: 26276380; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4560059.

Hernández-Durán S, Mielke D, Rohde V, Malinova V. The application of the unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a retrospective, single-center study. Neurosurg Rev. 2018 Feb 1. doi: 10.1007/s10143-018-0944-2. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29388120.

Ravindra VM, de Havenon A, Gooldy TC, Scoville J, Guan J, Couldwell WT, Taussky P, MacDonald JD, Schmidt RH, Park MS. Validation of the unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: comparison with real-world cerebrovascular practice. J Neurosurg. 2017 Oct 6:1-7. doi: 10.3171/2017.4.JNS17548. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 28984518.
× How can I help you?
WhatsApp WhatsApp us
%d bloggers like this: