Glasgow Coma Scale and FOUR Score in Predicting the Mortality of Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

Emergency Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-07-14
Parisa Ghelichkhani, Maryam Esmaeili, Mostafa Hosseini, Khatereh Seylani
{"title":"Glasgow Coma Scale and FOUR Score in Predicting the Mortality of Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.","authors":"Parisa Ghelichkhani,&nbsp;Maryam Esmaeili,&nbsp;Mostafa Hosseini,&nbsp;Khatereh Seylani","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11681,"journal":{"name":"Emergency","volume":"6 1","pages":"e42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1d/2b/emerg-6-e42.PMC6289152.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/7/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

格拉斯哥昏迷评分和FOUR评分在预测创伤患者死亡率中的应用诊断准确性研究。
引言:许多评分模型被提出用于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评分(GCS)和全无反应性评分(FOUR)在预测创伤患者死亡率方面的作用。方法:对2所教育医院重症监护病房(ICU)住院的创伤患者进行诊断准确性评价。患者入院时及入院后6、12、24小时同时计算GCS和FOUR评分。比较两种评分的预测值及其在受试者工作特征曲线下的面积。结果:90例患者纳入本研究(平均年龄39.4±17.3;74.4%的男性)。比较GCS和FOUR评分的ROC曲线下面积,这些值在入院时(p=0.68)、入院后6小时(p=0.13)、12小时(p=0.18)、24小时(p=0.20)的任何评估时间均无差异。结论:本研究结果表明,GCS与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果方面都有很高的预测能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emergency
Emergency EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: "Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine" is an international, Open Access, peer-reviewed, continuously published journal dedicated to improving the quality of care and increasing the knowledge in the field of emergency medicine by publishing high quality articles concerning emergency medicine and related disciplines. All accepted articles will be published immediately in order to increase its visibility and possibility of citation. The journal publishes articles on critical care, disaster and trauma management, environmental diseases, toxicology, pediatric emergency medicine, emergency medical services, emergency nursing, health policy and ethics, and other related topics. The journal supports the following types of articles: -Original/Research article -Systematic review/Meta-analysis -Brief report -Case-report -Letter to the editor -Photo quiz
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信