• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

《创伤性脑损伤患者在重症监护病房无意识状态下使用 Full Outline of Unresponsiveness 评估无反应预测效度和评定者间信度的波斯语版本》

Predictive Validity and Inter-Rater Reliability of the Persian Version of Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Among Unconscious Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in an Intensive Care Unit.

机构信息

Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.

Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.

出版信息

Neurocrit Care. 2017 Oct;27(2):229-236. doi: 10.1007/s12028-016-0324-0.

DOI:10.1007/s12028-016-0324-0
PMID:28054286
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) has some limitations when evaluating the unconscious patient. This study aims to validate the Persian version of the FOUR (Full Outline of Unresponsiveness) score as a proposed substitute.

METHODS

Two nurses, two nursing students, and two physicians scored the prepared Persian version of the FOUR and GCS in 84 patients with acute brain injury. The inter-rater agreement for the FOUR and the GCS scores was evaluated by the weighted kappa (κ ). The outcome prediction power of the scales was assessed by the area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC curve.

RESULTS

The inter-rater agreement of the FOUR was excellent (κ  = 0.923, 95 % CI, 0.874-0.971) and comparable with the one of the GCS (κ  = 0.938, 95 % CI, 0.889-0.987). The area under the curve (AUC) for predicting in-hospital mortality (modified Rankin Scale: 6) was 0.835 for the FOUR (95 % CI, 0.739-0.907) and 0.772 for the GCS (95 % CI, 0.668-0.856) (P = 0.01). AUC for predicting poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale: 3-6) for the total FOUR score was 0.983 (95 % CI, 0.928-0.999), which is comparable with 0.987 for the total GCS score (95 % CI, 0.934-1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

The researchers conclude that the Persian version of the FOUR score is a reliable and valid scale to assess unconscious patients with traumatic brain injury and can be substituted for the GCS.

摘要

简介

格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)在评估无意识患者时存在一些局限性。本研究旨在验证 FOUR(全面无反应评分)的波斯版本作为替代方案的有效性。

方法

两名护士、两名护理学生和两名医生对 84 名急性脑损伤患者的准备好的 FOUR 和 GCS 进行了评分。通过加权 Kappa(κ)评估 FOUR 和 GCS 评分的观察者间一致性。通过 ROC 曲线下面积(AUC)评估量表的预测结果。

结果

FOUR 的观察者间一致性极好(κ=0.923,95%CI,0.874-0.971),与 GCS 的一致性相当(κ=0.938,95%CI,0.889-0.987)。预测住院死亡率(改良 Rankin 量表:6)的曲线下面积(AUC)为 FOUR 为 0.835(95%CI,0.739-0.907),GCS 为 0.772(95%CI,0.668-0.856)(P=0.01)。总 FOUR 评分预测不良结局(改良 Rankin 量表:3-6)的 AUC 为 0.983(95%CI,0.928-0.999),与总 GCS 评分的 0.987(95%CI,0.934-1.000)相当。

结论

研究人员得出结论,FOUR 评分的波斯版本是评估创伤性脑损伤无意识患者的可靠和有效的量表,可以替代 GCS。

相似文献

1
Predictive Validity and Inter-Rater Reliability of the Persian Version of Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Among Unconscious Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in an Intensive Care Unit.《创伤性脑损伤患者在重症监护病房无意识状态下使用 Full Outline of Unresponsiveness 评估无反应预测效度和评定者间信度的波斯语版本》
Neurocrit Care. 2017 Oct;27(2):229-236. doi: 10.1007/s12028-016-0324-0.
2
Glasgow Coma Scale Versus Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Scale for Prediction of Outcomes in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in the Intensive Care Unit.格拉斯哥昏迷量表与全面无反应性量表对重症监护病房创伤性脑损伤患者预后的预测比较
Turk Neurosurg. 2016;26(5):720-4. doi: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.13536-14.0.
3
Inter-rater reliability of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.昏迷患者 Full Outline of UnResponsiveness 评分与格拉斯哥昏迷评分的观察者间信度:一项前瞻性观察研究。
Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R64. doi: 10.1186/cc8963. Epub 2010 Apr 14.
4
Validation of the Italian version of a new coma scale: the FOUR score.验证一种新昏迷评分量表的意大利语版本:FOUR 评分。
Intern Emerg Med. 2012 Apr;7(2):145-52. doi: 10.1007/s11739-011-0583-x. Epub 2011 Apr 20.
5
A comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in predictive modelling in traumatic brain injury.创伤性脑损伤预测模型中无反应性全面量表(FOUR)评分与格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)的比较
Br J Neurosurg. 2016;30(2):211-20. doi: 10.3109/02688697.2016.1161173. Epub 2016 Mar 22.
6
A multicenter prospective study of interobserver agreement using the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score coma scale in the intensive care unit.一项使用昏迷无反应量表(Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score coma scale)在重症监护病房进行的多中心前瞻性研究的观察者间一致性。
Crit Care Med. 2012 Sep;40(9):2671-6. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318258fd88.
7
Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit.医学重症监护病房中FOUR昏迷评分量表的有效性
Mayo Clin Proc. 2009 Aug;84(8):694-701. doi: 10.4065/84.8.694.
8
Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score for prediction of in-hospital mortality in traumatic brain injury patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.格拉斯哥昏迷量表与全面无反应评分预测创伤性脑损伤患者院内死亡率的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2023 Aug;49(4):1693-1706. doi: 10.1007/s00068-022-02111-w. Epub 2022 Sep 24.
9
Comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness and Glasgow Liege Scale/Glasgow Coma Scale in an intensive care unit population.在重症监护病房人群中比较全面无反应性评估量表和格拉斯哥昏迷量表/格拉斯哥昏迷评分。
Neurocrit Care. 2011 Dec;15(3):447-53. doi: 10.1007/s12028-011-9547-2.
10
Validation of the Chinese version of the FOUR score in the assessment of neurosurgical patients with different level of consciousness.中文版FOUR评分在评估不同意识水平神经外科患者中的效度验证。
BMC Neurol. 2015 Dec 10;15:254. doi: 10.1186/s12883-015-0508-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Navigating transition: a qualitative study on the clinical challenges faced by Chinese nursing master's graduates.应对转型:一项关于中国护理学硕士毕业生所面临临床挑战的定性研究
BMC Nurs. 2025 Aug 27;24(1):1119. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-03790-7.
2
Machine learning models for predicting early hemorrhage progression in traumatic brain injury.用于预测创伤性脑损伤早期出血进展的机器学习模型。
Sci Rep. 2024 May 22;14(1):11690. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61739-3.
3
Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score for prediction of in-hospital mortality in traumatic brain injury patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

本文引用的文献

1
Lack of Standardization in the Use of the Glasgow Coma Scale: Results of International Surveys.格拉斯哥昏迷量表使用缺乏标准化:国际调查结果
J Neurotrauma. 2016 Jan 1;33(1):89-94. doi: 10.1089/neu.2014.3843. Epub 2015 Aug 12.
2
Prediction of discharge outcome with the full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score in neurosurgical patients.使用全面无反应性(FOUR)评分预测神经外科患者的出院结局
Acta Med Okayama. 2011 Jun;65(3):205-10. doi: 10.18926/AMO/46633.
3
Comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness and Glasgow Liege Scale/Glasgow Coma Scale in an intensive care unit population.
格拉斯哥昏迷量表与全面无反应评分预测创伤性脑损伤患者院内死亡率的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2023 Aug;49(4):1693-1706. doi: 10.1007/s00068-022-02111-w. Epub 2022 Sep 24.
4
A multicenter cohort study on the association between prehospital immobilization and functional outcome of patients following spinal injury in Asia.一项关于亚洲脊柱损伤患者院前固定与功能预后关系的多中心队列研究。
Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 3;12(1):3492. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07481-0.
5
Association between prehospital time and outcome of trauma patients in 4 Asian countries: A cross-national, multicenter cohort study.4 个亚洲国家创伤患者院前时间与结局的关联:一项跨国、多中心队列研究。
PLoS Med. 2020 Oct 6;17(10):e1003360. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003360. eCollection 2020 Oct.
6
Automated pupillometry and the FOUR score - what is the diagnostic benefit in neurointensive care?自动化瞳孔测量技术和 FOUR 评分在神经重症监护中有何诊断获益?
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020 Jul;162(7):1639-1645. doi: 10.1007/s00701-020-04381-y. Epub 2020 May 7.
7
The Relationship of the FOUR Score to Patient Outcome: A Systematic Review.FOUR 评分与患者结局的关系:系统评价。
J Neurotrauma. 2019 Sep 1;36(17):2469-2483. doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.6243. Epub 2019 Jun 6.
8
Comparison of full outline of unresponsiveness score and Glasgow Coma Scale in Medical Intensive Care Unit.医学重症监护病房中无反应性评分全量表与格拉斯哥昏迷量表的比较
Ann Card Anaesth. 2019 Apr-Jun;22(2):143-148. doi: 10.4103/aca.ACA_25_18.
在重症监护病房人群中比较全面无反应性评估量表和格拉斯哥昏迷量表/格拉斯哥昏迷评分。
Neurocrit Care. 2011 Dec;15(3):447-53. doi: 10.1007/s12028-011-9547-2.
4
Validation of the Italian version of a new coma scale: the FOUR score.验证一种新昏迷评分量表的意大利语版本:FOUR 评分。
Intern Emerg Med. 2012 Apr;7(2):145-52. doi: 10.1007/s11739-011-0583-x. Epub 2011 Apr 20.
5
Validation of the FOUR Score (Spanish Version) in acute stroke: an interobserver variability study.《 FOUR 评分(西班牙语版)在急性脑卒中中的验证:一项观察者间变异性研究》。
Eur Neurol. 2010;63(6):364-9. doi: 10.1159/000292498. Epub 2010 Jun 16.
6
Evidence-based guideline update: determining brain death in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.基于证据的指南更新:成人脑死亡判定:美国神经病学学会质量标准分委会的报告。
Neurology. 2010 Jun 8;74(23):1911-8. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181e242a8.
7
Inter-rater reliability of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.昏迷患者 Full Outline of UnResponsiveness 评分与格拉斯哥昏迷评分的观察者间信度:一项前瞻性观察研究。
Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R64. doi: 10.1186/cc8963. Epub 2010 Apr 14.
8
Interrater reliability and predictive validity of the FOUR score coma scale in a pediatric population.儿科人群中FOUR昏迷评分量表的评分者间信度和预测效度。
J Neurosci Nurs. 2009 Oct;41(5):261-7; quiz 268-9. doi: 10.1097/jnn.0b013e3181b2c766.
9
[The French version of the FOUR score: A new coma score].[FOUR评分的法语版本:一种新的昏迷评分]
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2009 Oct;165(10):796-802. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2009.01.045. Epub 2009 Mar 17.
10
Validation of a new coma scale, the FOUR score, in the emergency department.一种新的昏迷量表(FOUR评分)在急诊科的验证。
Neurocrit Care. 2009;10(1):50-4. doi: 10.1007/s12028-008-9145-0. Epub 2008 Sep 20.