The Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E), an ordinal scale measuring global outcome, is used commonly as the primary outcome measure in clinical trials of traumatic brain injury. Analysis is often based on a dichotomization and thus has inherent statistical limitations, including loss of information related to the collapse of adjacent categories. A fixed dichotomization defines favorable outcome consistently for all subjects, whereas a sliding dichotomy tailors the definition of favorable outcome according to baseline prognosis/severity. Literature indicates that the sliding dichotomy is more statistically efficient than the fixed dichotomy; however, the sliding dichotomy still collapses categories and therefore discards information. We propose an alternative, a sliding scoring system for the GOS-E, intended to address the limitations of the sliding dichotomy. The score is assigned based on the number of levels between the achieved score and the favorable cut-point. The proposed scoring system reflects the magnitude of change, where change is defined according to each subject's baseline prognosis. Because the score is approximately continuous, statistical methods can rely on the normal distribution, both for analysis and study design. Two examples show the corresponding potential for improved power. A sliding score approach allows for quantification of the magnitude of change while still accounting for prognosis. Scientific advantages include increased power and an intuitive interpretation.
Keywords: Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended; sliding score; statistical analysis.