Department of Neurology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Neurocrit Care. 2011 Feb;14(1):134-43. doi: 10.1007/s12028-010-9409-3.
Numerous scoring scales have been proposed and validated to evaluate coma for rapid pre-hospital assessment and triage, disease severity, and prognosis for morbidity and mortality. These scoring systems have been predicated on core features that serve as a basis for this review and include ease of use, inter-rater reliability, reproducibility, and predictive value. Here we review the benefits and limitations of the most popular coma scoring systems. The methods include search of Medline, databases, and manual review of article bibliographies. Few of the many available coma scales have gained widespread approval and popularity. The best known and widely accepted scale is the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). The Reaction Level Scale (RLS85) has utility and proven benefit, but little acceptance outside of Scandinavia. The newer Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score provides an attractive replacement for all patients with fluctuating levels of consciousness and is gradually gaining wide acceptance.
已经提出并验证了许多评分量表，以用于快速院前评估和分诊、疾病严重程度以及发病率和死亡率的预后评估。这些评分系统基于作为本综述基础的核心特征，包括易用性、评分者间可靠性、可重复性和预测价值。在此，我们综述了最受欢迎的昏迷评分系统的优缺点。方法包括搜索 Medline、数据库以及对文章参考文献的手动综述。许多现有的昏迷评分量表中，仅有少数得到了广泛认可和普及。最著名和广泛接受的量表是格拉斯哥昏迷量表（GCS）。反应水平量表（RLS85）具有实用性和已证实的益处，但在斯堪的纳维亚半岛以外地区接受程度较低。新的全面无反应评分（FOUR）评分系统为所有意识水平波动的患者提供了一个有吸引力的替代方案，并且正在逐渐得到广泛接受。
Zotero 插件