• Ali M Alam, Glynn W Webb, Ceryce Collie, Sashini Mariathasan, Yun Huang, Orla Hilton, Rajish Shil, Katherine C Dodd, James B Lilleker, Craig J Smith, Ava Easton, Arina Tamborska, Rhys H Thomas, Nicholas W S Davies, Thomas M Jenkins, Michael Zandi, Laura Benjamin, Mark A Ellul, Tom Solomon, Thomas A Pollak, Tim Nicholson, Gerome Breen, Daniel J van Wamelen, Nicholas W Wood, Benedict D Michael, and (on Behalf of the COVID-CNS Group).
• Infection Neuroscience Laboratory, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Science, University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU for Emerging and Zoonotic Infection, Liverpool, UK.
• Clin Med (Lond). 2024 Sep 1; 24 (5): 100241100241.

AbstractReproducible and standardised neurological assessment scales are important in quantifying research outcomes. These scales are often performed by non-neurologists and/or non-clinicians and must be robust, quantifiable, reproducible and comparable to a neurologist's assessment. COVID-CNS is a multi-centre study which utilised the Neurological Impairment Scale (NIS) as a core assessment tool in studying neurological outcomes following COVID-19 infection. We investigated the strengths and weaknesses of the NIS when used by non-neurology clinicians and non-clinicians, and compared performance to a structured neurological examination performed by a neurology clinician. Through our findings, we provide practical advice on how non-clinicians can be readily trained in conducting reproducible and standardised neurological assessments in a multi-centre study, as well as illustrating potential pitfalls of these tools.Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

15 keywords...

hide…