Chattopadhyay Indrani, Ramamoorthy Lakshmi, Kumari Manoranjitha, Harichandrakumar K T, Lalthanthuami H T, Subramaniyan Rani
Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, College of Nursing, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.
Department of Neurosurgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.
Asian J Neurosurg. 2024 Apr 16;19(1):1-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1779515. eCollection 2024 Mar.
The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is widely used and considered the gold standard in assessing the consciousness of patients with traumatic brain injury. However, some significant limitations, like the considerable variations in interobserver reliability and predictive validity, were the reason for developing the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score. The current study aims to compare the prognostic accuracy of the FOUR score with the GCS score for in-hospital mortality and morbidity among patients with traumatic brain injury. A prospective cohort study was conducted, where 237 participants were selected by consecutive sampling from a tertiary care center. These patients were assessed with the help of GCS and FOUR scores within 6 hours of admission, and other clinical parameters were also noted. The level of consciousness was checked every day with the help of GCS and FOUR scores until their last hospitalization day. Glasgow Outcome Scale was used to assess their outcome on the last day of hospitalization. The GCS and FOUR scores were compared, and data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. The chi-square test, independent Student's -test, and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used for inferential analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) for the GCS score at the 6th hour for predicting mortality was 0.865 with a cutoff value of 5.5, and it yields a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 64%. The AUC for FOUR scores at the 6th hour for predicting the mortality was 0.893, with a cutoff value of 5.5, and it yields a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 73%. The current study shows that, as per the AUC of GCS and FOUR scores, their sensitivity was equal, but specificity was higher in the FOUR score. So, the FOUR score has higher accuracy than the GCS score in the prediction of mortality among traumatic brain injury patients.
格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)被广泛应用,被认为是评估创伤性脑损伤患者意识的金标准。然而,一些显著的局限性,如观察者间可靠性和预测效度的显著差异,是开发无反应性全面大纲(FOUR)评分的原因。本研究旨在比较FOUR评分与GCS评分对创伤性脑损伤患者院内死亡率和发病率的预后准确性。
进行了一项前瞻性队列研究,从一家三级医疗中心通过连续抽样选取了237名参与者。这些患者在入院后6小时内借助GCS和FOUR评分进行评估,并记录其他临床参数。在患者住院的最后一天之前,每天借助GCS和FOUR评分检查意识水平。使用格拉斯哥预后量表评估患者在住院最后一天的预后。比较了GCS和FOUR评分,并通过描述性和推断性统计分析数据。使用卡方检验、独立样本t检验和受试者工作特征分析进行推断性分析。
GCS评分在第6小时预测死亡率的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.865,截断值为5.5,敏感性为87%,特异性为64%。FOUR评分在第6小时预测死亡率的AUC为0.893,截断值为5.5,敏感性为87%,特异性为73%。
本研究表明,根据GCS和FOUR评分的AUC,它们的敏感性相同,但FOUR评分的特异性更高。因此,在预测创伤性脑损伤患者的死亡率方面,FOUR评分比GCS评分具有更高的准确性。