Suppr超能文献

三种简化意识评估量表与格拉斯哥昏迷量表预后准确性的比较。

Comparison of the prognostic validity of three simplified consciousness assessment scales with the Glasgow Coma Scale.

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University School of Medicine, 49 Konstantinoupoleos str., 54642, Thessaloníki, Greece.

出版信息

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2023 Oct;49(5):2193-2202. doi: 10.1007/s00068-023-02286-w. Epub 2023 Jun 9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Various tools simpler than the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) have been proposed for the assessment of consciousness. In this study, the validity of three coma scales [Simplified Motor Scale, Modified GCS Motor Response, and AVPU (alert, verbal, painful, unresponsive)] is evaluated for the recognition of coma and the prediction of short- and long-term mortality and poor outcome. The predictive validity of these scales is also compared to the GCS.

METHODS

Patients treated in the Department of Neurosurgery and the Intensive Care Unit in need of consciousness monitoring were assessed by four raters (two consultants, a resident and a nurse) using the GCS. The corresponding values of the simplified scales were estimated. Outcome was recorded at discharge and at 6 months. Areas Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUCs) were calculated for the prediction of mortality and poor outcome, and the identification of coma.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients were included. The simplified scales showed good overall validity (AUCs > 0.720 for all outcomes of interest), but lower than the GCS. For the identification of coma and the prediction of long-term poor outcome, the difference was significant (p < 0.050) for all the ratings of the most experienced rater. The validity of these scales was comparable to the GCS only in predicting in-hospital mortality, but without this being consistent for all raters.

CONCLUSION

The simplified scales showed inferior validity than the GCS. Their potential role in clinical practice needs further investigation. Thus, the replacement of the GCS as the main scale for consciousness assessment cannot be currently supported.

摘要

背景

有许多比格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)更简单的工具被提出用于评估意识。本研究旨在评估三种昏迷量表(简化运动量表、改良 GCS 运动反应和 AVPU(警觉、言语、疼痛、无反应))在识别昏迷以及预测短期和长期死亡率和不良结局方面的有效性。这些量表的预测有效性也与 GCS 进行了比较。

方法

需要进行意识监测的神经外科和重症监护病房的患者由四名评估者(两名顾问、一名住院医师和一名护士)使用 GCS 进行评估。估计了简化量表的相应值。出院时和 6 个月时记录结果。计算了受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUCs),以预测死亡率和不良结局以及昏迷的发生。

结果

共纳入 86 例患者。简化量表显示出良好的整体有效性(所有感兴趣结局的 AUC 值均>0.720),但低于 GCS。对于昏迷的识别和长期不良结局的预测,最有经验的评估者的所有评分均存在显著差异(p<0.050)。这些量表的有效性仅在预测院内死亡率方面与 GCS 相当,但并非所有评估者均如此。

结论

简化量表的有效性低于 GCS。它们在临床实践中的潜在作用需要进一步研究。因此,目前不能支持用 GCS 替代作为意识评估的主要量表。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff4e/10520075/b660f3fee3ea/68_2023_2286_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验