top of page

Glasgow Koma Skala (GCS)

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a clinical tool developed to assess the depth and duration of impaired consciousness and coma following acute brain injury¹. First introduced in 1974 by Graham Teasdale and Bryan Jennett, it has since become the most widely used instrument worldwide for evaluating levels of consciousness².

Pasient som fraktes i sykeseng

Target Population

Originally designed for traumatic brain injury (TBI) assessment, GCS is now applied to a broad range of conditions that cause reduced consciousness³, including:

  • Stroke (subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke)

  • Infections (e.g., meningitis, encephalitis)

  • Epileptic seizures

  • Brain abscesses

  • General trauma and ICU patients

  • Non-traumatic coma

  • Drug overdose or poisoning³

The scale can be administered pre-hospital, upon emergency admission, and repeatedly during hospitalization, enabling monitoring of changes in consciousness over time³.

Modified versions include:

  • Glasgow Coma Scale – Extended (GCS-E): Includes an amnesia scale to avoid premature discharge of mild TBI patients⁴.

  • Pediatric adaptations: Motor scale scoring is especially useful for older children and preverbal children with blunt trauma⁵.


Test Procedure

GCS follows four structured steps for evaluation⁷:

  1. Check for factors that may influence response (e.g., medication, alcohol, hypoxia).

  2. Observe for spontaneous behavior or responses to stimuli.

  3. Stimulate using fingertip pressure, trapezius squeeze, or supraorbital pressure to elicit a response.

  4. Evaluate by scoring responses in three categories: eye opening, verbal response, and motor response.


GCS Components and Scoring

GCS evaluates three domains, with higher scores indicating better neurological function⁷:

Eye Opening (E) (1–4 points):

  • 4 = Spontaneous

  • 3 = To verbal command

  • 2 = To pain

  • 1 = No response

Verbal Response (V) (1–5 points):

  • 5 = Oriented and coherent

  • 4 = Confused conversation

  • 3 = Inappropriate words

  • 2 = Incomprehensible sounds

  • 1 = No response

Motor Response (M) (1–6 points):

  • 6 = Follows commands

  • 5 = Localizes pain

  • 4 = Withdraws from pain

  • 3 = Abnormal flexion (decorticate)

  • 2 = Abnormal extension (decerebrate)

  • 1 = No response

Total score = E + V + M (range: 3–15).


Score Interpretation

  • Mild brain injury: GCS 13–15 (awake, may be confused but follows commands).

  • Moderate brain injury: GCS 9–12 (drowsy, opens eyes, localizes pain).

  • Severe brain injury: GCS 3–8 (often comatose, may show abnormal posturing)¹⁰.


NICE Clinical Guidelines

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends⁸:

  • GCS < 15: Monitor every 30 minutes until GCS reaches 15.

  • At GCS = 15: Monitor every 30 minutes for 2 hours, then hourly for 4 hours, then every 2 hours.

  • If GCS drops below 15: Resume 30-minute monitoring.


Evidence and Psychometric Properties

Reliability

  • Inter-rater reliability (total GCS): p = 0.86¹¹.

  • Subscale reliability:

    • Eye score: p = 0.76

    • Verbal score: p = 0.67

    • Motor score: p = 0.81

  • Systematic review: Individual components are more reliable than the total score, with motor response (κ = 0.94) being the most reliable¹³.


Validity

  • Challenge: Use in sedated or intubated patients can result in inaccurate scoring¹⁴.

  • Motor score is the strongest predictor of survival¹⁶.

  • In intubated patients, excluding verbal response does not reduce prognostic accuracy (r = 0.90 for verbal, r = 0.97 for total)¹⁵.


Sensitivity and Specificity

  • Sensitivity: 56.1% (misses some severe cases).

  • Specificity: 82.2% (low false positives)¹⁷.


Prognostic Value

  • GCS at 24h post-injury: OR = 0.40 for hospital mortality.

  • GCS at 72h post-injury: OR = 0.59 (better prediction)¹⁸.

  • Functional outcome prediction:

    • 71% accuracy for functional independence.

    • Moderate correlations with Disability Rating Scale (-0.28) and Cognitive FIM (0.37)¹⁹.


Conclusion

The Glasgow Coma Scale is a standardized, internationally recognized tool for assessing consciousness in brain injury and coma. It demonstrates high specificity, good inter-rater reliability, and strong prognostic value of the motor component. However, limitations exist, particularly in intubated patients.

GCS remains an essential tool for monitoring neurological status but should be used in conjunction with other assessments for a comprehensive evaluation.


Sources:

  1. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. The Lancet. 1974 Jul 13;304(7872):81-4.

  2. Frej M, Frej J. The Glasgow Structured Approach to Assessment of the Glasgow Coma Scale: what is GCS - glasgow coma scale. http://www.glasgowcomascale.org/what-is-gcs/

  3. Middleton PM. Practical use of the Glasgow Coma Scale; a comprehensive narrative review of GCS methodology. Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal. 2012 Aug 1;15(3):170-83.

  4. Nell V, Yates DW, Kruger J. An extended Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS-E) with enhanced sensitivity to mild brain injury. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2000 May 1;81(5):614-7.

  5. Holmes JF, Palchak MJ, MacFarlane T, Kuppermann N. Performance of the pediatric Glasgow Coma Scale in children with blunt head trauma. Academic emergency medicine 2005 Sep 1;12(9):814-9. PMID:16141014 (accessed 5 May 2017).

  6. Acker SN, Ross JT, Partrick DA, Nadlonek NA, Bronsert M, Bensard DD. Glasgow motor scale alone is equivalent to Glasgow Coma Scale at identifying children at risk for serious traumatic brain injury. Journal of trauma and acute care surgery. 2014 Aug 1;77(2):304-9.

  7. Institute of Neurological Sciences NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Glasgow Coma Scale: do it this way [Internet]. Sir Graham Teasdale; 2015Available from: http://www.glasgowcomascale.org/downloads/GCS-Assessment-Aid-English.pdf?v=3

  8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Head Injury: assessment and early management [Internet]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg176/resources/head-injury-assessment-and-early-management-pdf-35109755592901

  9. GCS at 40. Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 | The new approach to Glasgow Coma Scale assessment. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6qpEQxJQO4

  10. Zollman FS, editor. Manual of traumatic brain injury: Assessment and management. Springer Publishing Company; 2021 Jul 22.

  11. Gill M, Reiley D, Green S. Interrater reliability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in the emergency department. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2004;43(2):215-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00814-X

  12. Brott T, Adams H, Olinger C, Marler J, Barsan W, Biller J et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989;20(7):864-870. PMID: 2749846

  13. Reith F, Synnot A, van den Brande R, Gruen R, Maas A. Factors influencing the reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review. Neurosurgery 2017;42:3-15. PMID: 28327922

  14. Marion D, Carlier P. Problems with initial Glasgow Coma Scale assessment caused by prehospital treatment of patients with head injuries. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 1994;36(1):89-95. PMID: 8295256 (accessed 6 May 2017).

  15. Meredith W, Rutledge R, Fakhry S, Emery S, Kromhout-Schiro S. The conundrum of the Glasgow Coma Scale in intubated patients. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 1998;44(5):839-845. PMID: 9603086 (accessed 7 May 2017).

  16. Lesko M, Jenks T, Perel P, O'Brien S, Childs C, Bouamra O et al. Models of mortality probability in severe traumatic brain injury: results of the modeling by the UK Trauma Registry. Journal of Neurotrauma 2013;30(24):2021-2030. PMID:23865489 (accessed 6 May 2017).

  17. Grote S, Böcker W, Mutschler W, Bouillon B, Lefering R. Diagnostic value of the Glasgow Coma Scale for traumatic brain injury in 18,002 patients with severe multiple injuries. Journal of Neurotrauma 2011;28(4):527-534. PMID: 21265592

  18. McNett M, Amato S, Gianakis A, Grimm D, Philippbar S, Belle J et al. The FOUR Score and GCS as predictors of outcome after traumatic brain injury. Neurocritical Care 2014;21(1):52-57. doi:10.1007/s12028-013-9947-6

  19. McNett M. A review of the predictive ability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in head-injured patients. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing 2007;39(2):68-75. PMID: 17477220

  20. Jennett B. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage: a practical scale. The Lancet 1975 ;305(7905):480-484. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673675928305?via%3Dihub

Tip: Use Ctrl + F to search on the page.

Help us keep PhysioDock free

All content on PhysioDock is free – but it costs to keep it running.

PhysioDock is built to be an open and accessible platform for physiotherapists, students, and patients alike. Here you’ll find articles, measurement tools, exercise libraries, diagnostic resources, and professional materials – all completely free.

Behind the scenes, however, there are hundreds of hours of work: research, writing, development, design, maintenance, testing, and updates. We do this because we believe in open knowledge and better health information.

If you’d like to support our work and help us continue developing and improving PhysioDock, we truly appreciate everyone who:
– subscribes to a PhysioDock+ membership
– uses and recommends PhysioDock in their work or studies
– shares PhysioDock with others

Every contribution makes a difference – and helps us keep the platform open to everyone.
Thank you for supporting PhysioDock!

Best value

PhysioDock+

NOK 199

199

Every month

PhysioDock+ gives you exclusive benefits such as discounts, AI tools, and professional resources. The membership helps you work more efficiently, stay updated, and save time and money in your daily practice.

Valid until canceled

Access to Fysio-Open

Physionews+

Quizzes

10% discount on all purchases

5% discount on "Website for Your Clinic"

50% discount on shipping

Access to PhysioDock-AI (Under development)

Partner discounts

Exclusive product discounts

Contact us

Is something incorrect?

Something missing?
Something you’d like to see added?
More recent literature?

Feel free to get in touch and let us know which article it concerns and what could be improved.
We truly appreciate your feedback!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram

Thanks for contributing!

bottom of page