Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 3–15 | Cite as

The reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review

  • Florence C. M. Reith
  • Ruben Van den Brande
  • Anneliese Synnot
  • Russell Gruen
  • Andrew I. R. Maas
Systematic Review

Abstract

Introduction

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) provides a structured method for assessment of the level of consciousness. Its derived sum score is applied in research and adopted in intensive care unit scoring systems. Controversy exists on the reliability of the GCS. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize evidence on the reliability of the GCS.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Observational studies that assessed the reliability of the GCS, expressed by a statistical measure, were included. Methodological quality was evaluated with the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist and its influence on results considered. Reliability estimates were synthesized narratively.

Results

We identified 52 relevant studies that showed significant heterogeneity in the type of reliability estimates used, patients studied, setting and characteristics of observers. Methodological quality was good (n = 7), fair (n = 18) or poor (n = 27). In good quality studies, kappa values were ≥0.6 in 85 %, and all intraclass correlation coefficients indicated excellent reliability. Poor quality studies showed lower reliability estimates. Reliability for the GCS components was higher than for the sum score. Factors that may influence reliability include education and training, the level of consciousness and type of stimuli used.

Conclusions

Only 13 % of studies were of good quality and inconsistency in reported reliability estimates was found. Although the reliability was adequate in good quality studies, further improvement is desirable. From a methodological perspective, the quality of reliability studies needs to be improved. From a clinical perspective, a renewed focus on training/education and standardization of assessment is required.

Keywords

Glasgow Coma Scale Glasgow Coma Score Grading scales Reliability Reproducibility of results Systematic review 

Supplementary material

134_2015_4124_MOESM1_ESM.doc (66 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 65 kb)
134_2015_4124_MOESM2_ESM.doc (55 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 55 kb)
134_2015_4124_MOESM3_ESM.doc (68 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 68 kb)
134_2015_4124_MOESM4_ESM.doc (106 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOC 106 kb)
134_2015_4124_MOESM5_ESM.doc (64 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOC 64 kb)
134_2015_4124_MOESM6_ESM.doc (151 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (DOC 151 kb)
134_2015_4124_MOESM7_ESM.doc (74 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (DOC 74 kb)
134_2015_4124_MOESM8_ESM.doc (41 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (DOC 41 kb)
134_2015_4124_MOESM9_ESM.doc (42 kb)
Supplementary material 9 (DOC 41 kb)
134_2015_4124_MOESM10_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Supplementary material 10 (DOC 70 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Teasdale G, Jennett B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 2:81–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koziol J, Hacke W (1990) Multivariate data reduction by principal components with application to neurological scoring instruments. J Neurol 237:461–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE (1985) APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 13:818–829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J et al (1996) The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 22:707–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F (1993) A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 270:2957–2963CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teasdale G, Maas A, Lecky F et al (2014) The Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 years: standing the test of time. Lancet Neurol 13:844–854. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murray GD, Butcher I, McHugh GS et al (2007) Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma 24:329–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fava GA, Tomba E, Sonino N (2012) Clinimetrics: the science of clinical measurements. Int J Clin Pract 66:11–15. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02825.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun S (2011) Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 11:145–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baker M (2008) Reviewing the application of the Glasgow Coma Scale: Does it have interrater reliability? Br J Neurosci Nurs 4:342–347. doi:10.12968/bjnn.2008.4.7.30674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green SM (2011) Cheerio, laddie! Bidding farewell to the Glasgow Coma Scale. Ann Emerg Med 58:427–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lowry M (1998) Emergency nursing and the Glasgow Coma Scale. Accid Emerg Nurs 6:143–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wijdicks EFM (2006) Clinical scales for comatose patients: the Glasgow Coma Scale in historical context and the new FOUR Score. Rev Neurol Dis 3:109–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zuercher M, Ummenhofer W, Baltussen A, Walder B (2009) The use of Glasgow Coma Scale in injury assessment: a critical review. Brain Inj 23:371–384. doi:10.1080/02699050902926267 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prasad K (1996) The Glasgow Coma Scale: a critical appraisal of its clinimetric properties. J Clin Epidemiol 49:755–763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fleiss J (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Teasdale G, Knill-Jones R, van der Sande J (1978) Observer variability in assessing impaired consciousness and coma. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 41:603–610PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heron R, Davie A, Gillies R, Courtney M (2001) Interrater reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale scoring among nurses in sub-specialties of critical care. Aust Crit Care 14:100–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Menegazzi JJ, Davis EA, Sucov AN, Paris PM (1993) Reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale when used by emergency physicians and paramedics. J Trauma 34:46–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hollander JE, Go S, Lowery DW et al (2003) Inter-rater reliability of criteria used in assessing blunt head injury patients for intracranial injuries. Acad Emerg Med 10:830–835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kho ME, McDonald E, Stratford PW, Cook DJ (2007) Interrater reliability of APACHE II scores for medical-surgical intensive care patients: a prospective blinded study. Am J Crit Care 16:378–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wenner JB, Norena M, Khan N et al (2009) Reliability of intensive care unit admitting and comorbid diagnoses, race, elements of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II Score, and predicted probability of mortality in an electronic intensive care unit database. J Crit Care 24:401–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen LM, Martin CM, Morrison TL, Sibbald WJ (1999) Interobserver variability in data collection of the APACHE II score in teaching and community hospitals. Crit Care Med 27:1999–2004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Diringer MN, Edwards DF (1997) Does modification of the Innsbruck and the Glasgow Coma Scales improve their ability to predict functional outcome? Arch Neurol 54:606–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sadaka F, Patel D, Lakshmanan R (2012) The FOUR score predicts outcome in patients after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 16:95–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gill MR, Reiley DG, Green SM (2004) Inter-rater reliability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 43:215–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feldman A, Hart KW, Lindsell CJ, McMullan JT (2015) Randomized controlled trial of a scoring aid to improve Glasgow Coma Scale scoring by emergency medical services providers. Ann Emerg Med 65(325–329):e2. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.07.454 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Juarez VJ, Lyons M (1995) Interrater reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale. J Neurosci Nurs 27:283–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rowley G, Fielding K (1991) Reliability and accuracy of the Glasgow Coma Scale with experienced and inexperienced users. Lancet 337:535–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fielding K, Rowley G (1990) Reliability of assessments by skilled observers using the Glasgow Coma Scale. Aust J Adv Nurs 7:13–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gill M, Martens K, Lynch EL et al (2007) Inter-rater reliability of 3 simplified neurologic scales applied to adults presenting to the emergency department with altered levels of consciousness. Ann Emerg Med 49:403–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Koch D, Linn S (2000) The Glasgow Coma Scale and the challenge of clinimetrics. Int Med J 7:51–60Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sternbach GL (2000) The Glasgow coma scale. J Emerg Med 19:67–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Medica 22:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Heard K, Bebarta VS (2004) Reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale for the emergency department evaluation of poisoned patients. Hum Exp Toxicol 23:197–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Le Roux P, Menon DK, Citerio G et al (2014) Consensus summary statement of the international multidisciplinary consensus conference on multimodality monitoring in neurocritical care : a statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 40(9):1189–1209. doi:10.1007/s00134-014-3369-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Livingston BM, Mackenzie SJ, MacKirdy FN, Howie JC (2000) Should the pre-sedation Glasgow Coma Scale value be used when calculating acute physiology and chronic health evaluation scores for sedated patients? Scottish Intensive Care Society Audit Group. Crit Care Med 28:389–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rutledge R, Lentz CW, Fakhry S, Hunt J (1996) Appropriate use of the Glasgow Coma Scale in intubated patients: a linear regression prediction of the Glasgow Verbal Score from the Glasgow Eye and Motor scores. J Trauma 41:514–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zuercher M, Ummenhofer W, Baltussen A, Walder B (2009) The use of Glasgow Coma Scale in injury assessment: a critical review. Brain Inj 23:371–384. doi:10.1080/02699050902926267 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S et al (2011) Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64:96–106. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhao X (2011) When to use Cohen’s k, if Ever?. International Communication Association 2011 Conference, Boston, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Braakman R, Avezaat CJ, Maas AI et al (1977) Inter observer agreement in the assessment of the motor response of the Glasgow coma scale. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 80:100–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rimel RW, Jane JA, Edlich RF (1979) An injury severity scale for comprehensive management of central nervous system trauma. JACEP 8:64–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lindsay KW, Teasdale GM, Knill-Jones RP (1983) Observer variability in assessing the clinical features of subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Neurosurg 58:57–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stanczak DE, White JG 3rd, Gouview WD et al (1984) Assessment of level of consciousness following severe neurological insult. A comparison of the psychometric qualities of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the comprehensive level of Consciousness Scale. J Neurosurg 60:955–960. doi:10.3171/jns.1984.60.5.0955 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Starmark JE, Heath A (1988) Severity grading in self-poisoning. Hum Toxicol 7:551–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Starmark JE, Stalhammar D, Holmgren E, Rosander B (1988) A comparison of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Reaction Level Scale (RLS85). J Neurosurg 69:699–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tesseris J, Pantazidis N, Routsi C, Fragoulakis D (1991) A comparative study of the Reaction Level Scale (RLS85) with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Edinburgh-2 Coma Scale (modified) (E2CS(M)). Acta Neurochir Wien 110:65–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ellis A, Cavanagh SJ (1992) Aspects of neurosurgical assessment using the Glasgow Coma Scale. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 8:94–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Oshiro EM, Walter KA, Piantadosi S et al (1997) A new subarachnoid hemorrhage grading system based on the Glasgow Coma Scale: a comparison with the Hunt and Hess and World Federation of Neurological Surgeons Scales in a clinical series. Neurosurgery 41:140–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Crossman J, Bankes M, Bhan A, Crockard HA (1998) The Glasgow Coma Score: reliable evidence? Injury 29:435–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wijdicks EF, Kokmen E, O’Brien PC (1998) Measurement of impaired consciousness in the neurological intensive care unit: a new test. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 64:117–119PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lane PL, Baez AA, Brabson T et al (2002) Effectiveness of a Glasgow Coma Scale instructional video for EMS providers. Prehosp Disaster Med 17:142–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ely EW, Truman B, Shintani A et al (2003) Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU patients: reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). JAMA 289:2983–2991CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV et al (2005) Validation of a new Coma Scale: the FOUR score. Ann Neurol 58:585–593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Holdgate A, Ching N, Angonese L (2006) Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness. Emerg Med Australas 18:379–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Baez AA, Giraldez EM, De Pena JM (2007) Precision and reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale score among a cohort of Latin American prehospital emergency care providers. Prehosp Disaster Med 22:230–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kerby JD, MacLennan PA, Burton JN et al (2007) Agreement between prehospital and emergency department Glasgow Coma Scores. J Trauma 63:1026–1031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wolf CA, Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, McClelland RL (2007) Further validation of the FOUR Score Coma Scale by intensive care nurses. Mayo Clin Proc 82:435–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nassar AP Jr, Neto RCP, de Figueiredo WB, Park M (2008) Validity, reliability and applicability of Portuguese versions of Sedation-Agitation Scales among critically ill patients. Sao Paulo Med J 126:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Akavipat P (2009) Endorsement of the FOUR Score for consciousness assessment in neurosurgical patients. Neurol Med Chir Tokyo 49:565–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Iyer VN, Mandrekar JN, Danielson RD et al (2009) Validity of the FOUR Score Coma Scale in the medical intensive care unit. Mayo Clin Proc 84:694–701PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ryu WHA, Feinstein A, Colantonio A et al (2009) Early identification and incidence of mild TBI in Ontario. Can J Neurol Sci 36:429–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Stead LG, Wijdicks EF, Bhagra A et al (2009) Validation of a new Coma Scale, the FOUR Score, in the emergency department. Neurocrit Care 10:50–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fischer M, Ruegg S, Czaplinski A et al (2010) Inter-rater reliability of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study. Crit Care 14:R64PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Idrovo L, Fuentes B, Medina J et al (2010) Validation of the FOUR Score (Spanish Version) in acute stroke: an interobserver variability study. Eur Neurol 63:364–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Necioglu Orken D, Kocaman Sagduyu A, Sirin H et al (2010) Reliability of the Turkish version of a new Coma Scale: FOUR Score. Balk Med J 27:28–31Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ashkenazy S, DeKeyser-Ganz F (2011) Assessment of the reliability and validity of the Comfort Scale for adult intensive care patients. Heart Lung 40:e44–e51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bruno MA, Ledoux D, Lambermont B et al (2011) Comparison of the FOUR and Glasgow Liege Scale/Glasgow Coma Scale in an intensive care unit population. Neurocrit Care 15:447–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gujjar AR, Nandagopal R, Jacob PC et al (2011) FOUR Score–a new Coma Score: inter-observer reliability and relation to outcome in critically ill medical patients. Eur J Neurol 18:441Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kevric J, Jelinek GA, Knott J, Weiland TJ (2011) Validation of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Scale for conscious state in the emergency department: comparison against the Glasgow Coma Scale. Emerg Med J 28:486–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Namiki J, Yamazaki M, Funabiki T, Hori S (2011) Inaccuracy and misjudged factors of Glasgow Coma Scale scores when assessed by inexperienced physicians. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 113:393–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Patel D, Sadaka F, Lakshmanan R (2011) The FOUR score predicts outcome in patients after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 15:S238Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Takahashi C, Okudera H, Origasa H et al (2011) A simple and useful coma scale for patients with neurologic emergencies: the Emergency Coma Scale. Am J Emerg Med 29:196–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Winship C, Williams B, Boyle M (2011) Assessment of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a pilot study examining the accuracy of paramedic undergraduates. Australas J Paramed 10:11Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Marcati E, Ricci S, Casalena A et al (2012) Validation of the Italian version of a new Coma Scale: the Four Score. Intern Emerg Med 7:145–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Winship C, Williams B, Boyle MJ (2012) Should an alternative to the Glasgow Coma Scale be taught to paramedic students? Emerg Med J 30:e19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Benítez-Rosario MA, Castillo-Padrós M, Garrido-Bernet B et al (2013) Appropriateness and reliability testing of the modified richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale in Spanish patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manag 45:1112–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Dinh MM, Oliver M, Bein K et al (2013) Level of agreement between prehospital and emergency department vital signs in trauma patients. Emerg Med Australas 25:457–463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gujjar AR, Jacob PC, Nandhagopal R et al (2013) FOUR score and Glasgow Coma Scale in medical patients with altered sensorium: interrater reliability and relation to outcome. J Crit Care 28(316):e1–e8PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ESICM 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florence C. M. Reith
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ruben Van den Brande
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anneliese Synnot
    • 3
    • 4
    • 7
  • Russell Gruen
    • 5
    • 6
    • 8
  • Andrew I. R. Maas
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryAntwerp University HospitalEdegemBelgium
  2. 2.University of AntwerpEdegemBelgium
  3. 3.Australian & New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventive MedicineMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public HealthLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  5. 5.Central Clinical SchoolMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  6. 6.Lee Kong Chian School of MedicineNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  7. 7.ANZIC-RCDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  8. 8.Central Clinical SchoolLevel 6, The Alfred CentreMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations