• 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

在评估头部受伤儿童的意识水平时,格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)和AVPU量表的等效程度如何?一项针对英国医院入院病例的横断面研究。

To what extent are GCS and AVPU equivalent to each other when assessing the level of consciousness of children with head injury? A cross-sectional study of UK hospital admissions.

作者信息

Nuttall Amy Gl, Paton Katie M, Kemp Alison M

机构信息

Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2018 Nov 28;8(11):e023216. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023216.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023216
PMID:30498041
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6278791/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate utility and equivalence of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive (AVPU) scale in children with head injury.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

UK hospital admissions: September 2009-February 2010.

PATIENTS

<15 years with head injury.

INTERVENTIONS

GCS and/or AVPU at injury scene and in emergency departments (ED).

MAIN OUTCOME

Measures used, the equivalence of AVPU to GCS, GCS at the scene predicting GCS in ED, CT results by age, hospital type.

RESULTS

Level of consciousness was recorded in 91% (5168/5700) in ED (43%: GCS/30.5%: GCS+AVPU/17.3%: AVPU) and 66.1% (1190/1801) prehospital (33%: GCS/26%GCS+AVPU/7%: AVPU). Failure to record level of consciousness and the use of AVPU were greatest for infants. Correlation between AVPU and median GCS in 1147 children <5 years: A=15, V=14, P=8, U=3, for 1163 children ≥5 years: A=15, V=13, P=11, U=3. There was no significant difference in the proportion of infants who had a CT whether AVPU=V/P/U or GCS<15. However diagnostic yield of intracranial injury or depressed fracture was significantly greater for V/P/U than GCS<15 :7/7: 100% (95% CI 64.6% to 100%) versus 5/17: 29.4% (95% CI 13.3% to 53.1%). For children >1 year significantly more had a CT scan when GCS<14 was recorded than 'V/P/U only' and the diagnostic yield was greater. Prehospital GCS and GCS in the ED were the same for 77.4% (705/911).

CONCLUSION

There was a clear correlation between Alert and GCS=15 and between Unresponsive and GCS=3 but a wider range of GCS scores for responsive to Pain or Voice that varied with age. AVPU was valuable at initial assessment of infants and did not adversely affect the proportion of infants who had head CT or the diagnostic yield.

摘要

目的

评估格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)和清醒、对声音反应、对疼痛反应、无反应(AVPU)量表在头部受伤儿童中的实用性和等效性。

设计

横断面研究。

地点

英国医院入院病例:2009年9月至2010年2月。

患者

年龄<15岁的头部受伤患儿。

干预措施

在受伤现场和急诊科使用GCS和/或AVPU。

主要结局

所采用的测量方法、AVPU与GCS的等效性、现场GCS对急诊科GCS的预测、按年龄和医院类型划分的CT结果。

结果

急诊科91%(5168/5700)记录了意识水平(43%:GCS/30.5%:GCS+AVPU/17.3%:AVPU),院前为66.1%(1190/1801)(33%:GCS/26%:GCS+AVPU/7%:AVPU)。婴儿未记录意识水平的情况以及AVPU的使用最为常见。1147名<5岁儿童中AVPU与GCS中位数的相关性:清醒=15,对声音反应=14,对疼痛反应=8,无反应=3;1163名≥5岁儿童中:清醒=15,对声音反应=13,对疼痛反应=11,无反应=3。无论AVPU为对声音反应/对疼痛反应/无反应还是GCS<15,进行CT检查的婴儿比例无显著差异。然而,对声音反应/对疼痛反应/无反应组颅内损伤或凹陷性骨折的诊断率显著高于GCS<15组:7/7:100%(95%CI 64.6%至100%)对5/17:29.4%(95%CI 13.3%至53.1%)。对于>1岁儿童,记录到GCS<14时进行CT扫描的人数显著多于仅采用对声音反应/对疼痛反应/无反应评估的情况,且诊断率更高。院前GCS与急诊科GCS相同的比例为77.4%(705/911)。

结论

清醒与GCS=15、无反应与GCS=3之间存在明显相关性,但对疼痛或声音有反应时GCS评分范围更广,且随年龄变化。AVPU在婴儿初始评估中具有价值,且不会对进行头部CT检查的婴儿比例或诊断率产生不利影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9239/6278791/deedfefcbe3c/bmjopen-2018-023216f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9239/6278791/deedfefcbe3c/bmjopen-2018-023216f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9239/6278791/deedfefcbe3c/bmjopen-2018-023216f01.jpg

相似文献

1
To what extent are GCS and AVPU equivalent to each other when assessing the level of consciousness of children with head injury? A cross-sectional study of UK hospital admissions.在评估头部受伤儿童的意识水平时,格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)和AVPU量表的等效程度如何?一项针对英国医院入院病例的横断面研究。
BMJ Open. 2018 Nov 28;8(11):e023216. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023216.
2
Comparison of consciousness level assessment in the poisoned patient using the alert/verbal/painful/unresponsive scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale.使用清醒/言语/疼痛刺激无反应量表和格拉斯哥昏迷量表对中毒患者意识水平评估的比较。
Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Aug;44(2):108-13. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.03.028.
3
Head injury from falls in children younger than 6 years of age.6岁以下儿童因跌倒导致的头部损伤。
Arch Dis Child. 2015 Nov;100(11):1032-7. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307119. Epub 2015 Aug 21.
4
Comparison of the AVPU Scale and the Pediatric GCS in Prehospital Setting.院前环境中 AVPU 分级与小儿 GCS 的比较。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016 Jul-Aug;20(4):493-8. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2016.1139216. Epub 2016 Mar 8.
5
Is AVPU comparable to GCS in critical prehospital decisions? - A cross-sectional study.在关键的院前决策中,AVPU 与 GCS 相比如何?——一项横断面研究。
Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Sep;59:106-110. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.06.042. Epub 2022 Jun 26.
6
Comparing AVPU and Glasgow Coma Scales Among Children Seen by Emergency Medical Services.比较急救医疗服务中观察到的儿童的 AVPU 与格拉斯哥昏迷量表。
Pediatrics. 2024 Aug 1;154(2). doi: 10.1542/peds.2024-066168.
7
Pediatric minor head trauma: indications for computed tomographic scanning revisited.小儿轻度头部外伤:重新审视计算机断层扫描的指征
J Trauma. 2001 Aug;51(2):231-7; discussion 237-8. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200108000-00004.
8
Epidemiology of children with head injury: a national overview.儿童头部损伤流行病学:全国概况
Arch Dis Child. 2016 Jun;101(6):527-532. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-308424. Epub 2016 Mar 14.
9
Cranial computed tomography scans in children after minimal head injury with loss of consciousness.儿童轻度头部受伤并伴有意识丧失后的头颅计算机断层扫描
Ann Emerg Med. 1994 Oct;24(4):640-5. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(94)70273-x.
10
Do children with blunt head trauma and normal cranial computed tomography scan results require hospitalization for neurologic observation?患有钝器性头部外伤且头颅计算机断层扫描结果正常的儿童是否需要住院进行神经观察?
Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Oct;58(4):315-22. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.03.060. Epub 2011 Jun 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of Glasgow coma scale, motor component, eye component, and simplified motor scale for predicting trauma outcomes: a 13-year multicenter retrospective cohort study.格拉斯哥昏迷量表、运动部分、眼部部分及简化运动量表对创伤预后预测的比较:一项为期13年的多中心回顾性队列研究。
BMC Emerg Med. 2025 May 30;25(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12873-025-01246-4.
2
Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios as mortality predictors in acute Aluminum phosphide (grain pills) poisoning: clinical insights and risk assessment.中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值及血小板与淋巴细胞比值作为急性磷化铝(丸剂)中毒死亡率预测指标:临床见解与风险评估
Toxicol Res (Camb). 2024 Dec 13;13(6):tfae212. doi: 10.1093/toxres/tfae212. eCollection 2024 Dec.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Selecting children for head CT following head injury.头部受伤后儿童头部CT检查的选择
Arch Dis Child. 2016 Oct;101(10):929-34. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309078. Epub 2016 Jul 22.
2
Epidemiology of children with head injury: a national overview.儿童头部损伤流行病学:全国概况
Arch Dis Child. 2016 Jun;101(6):527-532. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-308424. Epub 2016 Mar 14.
3
Comparison of the AVPU Scale and the Pediatric GCS in Prehospital Setting.院前环境中 AVPU 分级与小儿 GCS 的比较。
Factors associated with refusal of transport to hospital among patients experiencing suicidal crisis in South Korea.
韩国自杀危机患者中与拒绝送往医院相关的因素。
Heliyon. 2024 Sep 25;10(20):e38451. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38451. eCollection 2024 Oct 30.
4
Inconsistency in the Application of Glasgow Coma Scale in Pediatric Patients.格拉斯哥昏迷量表在儿科患者中的应用不一致。
Med Princ Pract. 2024;33(1):41-46. doi: 10.1159/000534797. Epub 2023 Oct 27.
5
Interobserver reliability and diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage for identifying traumatic brain injury in paediatric patients: a systematic review.院前分诊识别小儿创伤性脑损伤的观察者间可靠性和诊断准确性:系统评价。
Childs Nerv Syst. 2024 Mar;40(3):813-821. doi: 10.1007/s00381-023-06144-3. Epub 2023 Oct 18.
6
Validation of the Conventional Trauma and Injury Severity Score and a Newly Developed Survival Predictive Model in Pediatric Patients with Blunt Trauma: A Nationwide Observation Study.传统创伤和损伤严重程度评分及新开发的钝性创伤儿科患者生存预测模型的验证:一项全国性观察研究
Children (Basel). 2023 Sep 12;10(9):1542. doi: 10.3390/children10091542.
7
Clinical support system for triage based on federated learning for the Korea triage and acuity scale.基于联邦学习的韩国预检分诊及 acuity 量表的分诊临床支持系统
Heliyon. 2023 Aug 17;9(8):e19210. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19210. eCollection 2023 Aug.
8
Evaluation of various scoring systems as predictors of the need for intensive care unit admission and other adverse outcomes among patients with acute clozapine poisoning.评估各种评分系统作为急性氯氮平中毒患者入住重症监护病房需求及其他不良结局预测指标的情况。
Toxicol Res (Camb). 2023 May 4;12(3):468-479. doi: 10.1093/toxres/tfad029. eCollection 2023 Jun.
9
Validation of the Pediatric Resuscitation and Trauma Outcome (PRESTO) model in injury patients in Tanzania.验证坦桑尼亚创伤患儿复苏和创伤结局(PRESTO)模型。
BMJ Open. 2023 Apr 5;13(4):e070747. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070747.
10
Association between pre-hospital National Early Warning Score and in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury.院前国家早期预警评分与创伤性脑损伤患者院内死亡率的相关性。
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2023 Mar;29(3):292-296. doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2022.96809.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016 Jul-Aug;20(4):493-8. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2016.1139216. Epub 2016 Mar 8.
4
The Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 years: standing the test of time.格拉斯哥昏迷评分 40 年:经得起时间的考验。
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Aug;13(8):844-54. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6.
5
Epidemiology of paediatric minor head injury: Comparison of injury characteristics with Indices of Multiple Deprivation.小儿轻度头部损伤的流行病学:损伤特征与多重剥夺指数的比较
Injury. 2013 Dec;44(12):1855-61. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.07.021. Epub 2013 Aug 6.
6
Practical use of the Glasgow Coma Scale; a comprehensive narrative review of GCS methodology.格拉斯哥昏迷量表的实际应用;对格拉斯哥昏迷量表方法的全面叙述性综述
Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2012 Aug;15(3):170-83. doi: 10.1016/j.aenj.2012.06.002. Epub 2012 Aug 3.
7
Comparison of alert verbal painful unresponsiveness scale and the Glasgow Coma Score.痛觉无反应性警觉性言语评估量表与格拉斯哥昏迷评分的比较。
Indian Pediatr. 2011 Apr;48(4):331-2.
8
The use of Glasgow Coma Scale in injury assessment: a critical review.格拉斯哥昏迷量表在损伤评估中的应用:一项批判性综述。
Brain Inj. 2009 May;23(5):371-84. doi: 10.1080/02699050902926267.
9
Comparison of consciousness level assessment in the poisoned patient using the alert/verbal/painful/unresponsive scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale.使用清醒/言语/疼痛刺激无反应量表和格拉斯哥昏迷量表对中毒患者意识水平评估的比较。
Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Aug;44(2):108-13. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.03.028.
10
Simple bedside assessment of level of consciousness: comparison of two simple assessment scales with the Glasgow Coma scale.意识水平的简单床边评估:两种简单评估量表与格拉斯哥昏迷量表的比较。
Anaesthesia. 2004 Jan;59(1):34-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.03526.x.