Ghelichkhani Parisa, Esmaeili Maryam, Hosseini Mostafa, Seylani Khatereh
Department of Intensive Care Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Emerg (Tehran). 2018;6(1):e42. Epub 2018 Jul 14.
Many scoring models have been proposed for evaluating level of consciousness in trauma patients. The aim of this study is to compare Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score in predicting the mortality of trauma patients.
In this diagnostic accuracy study trauma patients hospitalized in intensive care unit (ICU) of 2 educational hospitals were evaluated. GCS and FOUR score of each patient were simultaneously calculated on admission as well as 6, 12 and 24 hours after that. The predictive values of the two scores and their area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve were compared.
90 patients were included in the present study (mean age 39.4±17.3; 74.4% male). Comparing the area under the ROC curve of GCS and FOUR score showed that these values were not different at any of the evaluated times: on admission (p=0.68), and 6 hours (p=0.13), 12 hours (p=0.18), and 24 hours (p=0.20) after that.
The results of our study showed that, GCS and FOUR score have the same value in predicting the mortality of trauma patients. Both tools had high predictive power in predicting the outcome at the time of discharge.
已经提出了许多评分模型来评估创伤患者的意识水平。本研究的目的是比较格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)和全面无反应性大纲(FOUR)评分在预测创伤患者死亡率方面的作用。
在这项诊断准确性研究中,对两家教学医院重症监护病房(ICU)收治的创伤患者进行了评估。在患者入院时以及入院后6、12和24小时同时计算每位患者的GCS和FOUR评分。比较了这两种评分的预测价值及其受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线下的面积。
本研究共纳入90例患者(平均年龄39.4±17.3岁;男性占74.4%)。比较GCS和FOUR评分的ROC曲线下面积发现,在任何评估时间点,这些值均无差异:入院时(p=0.68),以及入院后6小时(p=0.13)、12小时(p=0.18)和24小时(p=0.20)。
我们的研究结果表明,GCS和FOUR评分在预测创伤患者死亡率方面具有相同的价值。这两种工具在预测出院时的结局方面都具有较高的预测能力。