The validity, reliability and feasibility of four instruments for assessing the consciousness of stroke patients in a neurological intensive care unit compared

Table 3 Spearman correlation coefficients between the scales’ ratings^a

	Physician r(95%CI)	Physiotherapist r(95% CI)	Trainee r(95% CI)	Overall r(95% CI)
RASS versus SAS	0.99(0.99–1.00)	0.99 (0.99–1.00)	0.99 (0.99–1.00)	0.99(0.99–1.00)
RASS versus GCS	0.74(0.62–0.84)	0.75(0.61–0.84)	0.74 (0.61–0.83)	0.74(0.67–0.80)
RASS versus MAAS	0.99(0.98–0.99)	0.99 (0.99–1.00)	0.98 (0.97–0.99)	0.99 (0.98–0.99)
SAS versus GCS	0.74(0.62–0.84)	0.74(0.61–0.83)	0.74 (0.61–0.83)	0.74 (0.67–0.80)
SAS versus MAAS	0.99(0.98–0.99)	0.99 (0.99–1.00)	0.98 (0.97–0.99)	0.99(0.98–0.99)
GCS versus MAAS	0.76(0.63–0.85)	0.73 (0.60–0.83)	0.72(0.57–0.82)	0.74(0.66–0.79)

CI denotes confidence intervals. r is Spearman’s ranked correlation coefficient. RASS, SAS, GCS, MAAS respectively represent the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, the sedation-agitation scale, the Glasgow Coma Scale and the motor activity assessment scale
^aindicates all p≤0.001

ISSN: 1471-2288