创伤后格拉斯哥昏迷量表和因斯布鲁克昏迷量表结果分析中的统计建模

Statistical modelling in analysis of outcome after trauma Glasgow-Coma-Scale and Innsbruck-Coma-Scale.

作者信息

Benzer A, Traweger C, Ofner D, Marosi M, Luef G, Schmutzhard E

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesia, University Hospital, Innsbruck, Austria.

出版信息

Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 1995 Jun;30(4):231-5. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-996481.

DOI:10.1055/s-2007-996481

PMID:7632857

Abstract

AIM OF THE STUDY

The current study investigated the Glasgow-Coma-Scale (GCS) and the Innsbruck-Coma-Scale (ICS) for accuracy and reliability of prehospital prediction of non-survival.

METHODS

254 patients were scored immediately after trauma.

RESULTS

Both scales equally predicted non-survival with low scores (p < 0.001). The ICS was slightly better in overall prediction of patient outcome (ICS: 84.98%; GCS: 82.68%), but more importantly, statistical analysis (logistic regression model) showed a greater distance between the median scores of survivors and non-survivors, when scored with the ICS (survival: 12; non-survival: 3) than when scored with the GCS (survival: 7; non-survival: 4).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study not only suggest that it is possible to predict mortality prior to therapy for any individual GCS and ICS coma score, but also indicated the ICS to be safer to use than the GCS because of the greater distance of the median scores for survivors and non survivors.

摘要

研究目的

本研究调查了格拉斯哥昏迷量表（GCS）和因斯布鲁克昏迷量表（ICS）在院前预测死亡方面的准确性和可靠性。

方法

254例患者在创伤后立即进行评分。

结果

两个量表在低分情况下对死亡的预测能力相当（p < 0.001）。ICS在总体预测患者预后方面略胜一筹（ICS：84.98%；GCS：82.68%），但更重要的是，统计分析（逻辑回归模型）显示，与使用GCS评分时（存活：7分；死亡：4分）相比，使用ICS评分时，存活者和非存活者的中位数分数之间的差距更大（存活：12分；死亡：3分）。