在一家三级医疗中心的创伤性脑损伤患者中比较无反应全轮廓(FOUR)评分与格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分的预后准确性

Indrani Chattopadhyay, Lakshmi Ramamoorthy, Manoranjitha Kumari, K.T. Harichandrakumar, H. T. Lalthanthuami, Rani Subramaniyan
{"title":"在一家三级医疗中心的创伤性脑损伤患者中比较无反应全轮廓(FOUR)评分与格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分的预后准确性","authors":"Indrani Chattopadhyay, Lakshmi Ramamoorthy, Manoranjitha Kumari, K.T. Harichandrakumar, H. T. Lalthanthuami, Rani Subramaniyan","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1779515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Objectives 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.\n Materials and Methods 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 t-test, and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used for inferential analysis.\n Results 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%.\n Conclusion 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.","PeriodicalId":94300,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Prognostic Accuracy of Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) Score among Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in a Tertiary Care Center\",\"authors\":\"Indrani Chattopadhyay, Lakshmi Ramamoorthy, Manoranjitha Kumari, K.T. Harichandrakumar, H. T. Lalthanthuami, Rani Subramaniyan\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1779515\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Objectives 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.\\n Materials and Methods 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 t-test, and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used for inferential analysis.\\n Results 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%.\\n Conclusion 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of neurosurgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1779515\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1779515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)被广泛使用,被认为是评估脑外伤患者意识的黄金标准。然而,该量表存在一些明显的局限性,如观察者之间的可靠性和预测有效性存在相当大的差异,这也是开发 "反应迟钝全纲"(FOUR)量表的原因。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。材料与方法 本研究采用前瞻性队列研究方法,从一家三级医疗中心连续抽样选出 237 名参与者。这些患者在入院 6 小时内接受了 GCS 和 FOUR 评分评估,并记录了其他临床参数。在最后一个住院日之前,每天使用 GCS 和 FOUR 评分检查患者的意识水平。格拉斯哥结果量表用于评估住院最后一天的结果。对 GCS 和 FOUR 评分进行比较,并通过描述性和推论性统计对数据进行分析。推理分析采用卡方检验、独立学生 t 检验和接收者操作特征分析。结果 第 6 小时 GCS 评分预测死亡率的曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.865,临界值为 5.5,灵敏度为 87%,特异度为 64%。FOUR 评分在第 6 小时预测死亡率的 AUC 为 0.893,临界值为 5.5,灵敏度为 87%,特异度为 73%。结论 本次研究表明,根据 GCS 和 FOUR 评分的 AUC 值,两者的灵敏度相同,但 FOUR 评分的特异性更高。因此,在预测脑外伤患者的死亡率方面,FOUR 评分比 GCS 评分更准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Prognostic Accuracy of Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) Score among Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in a Tertiary Care Center
Objectives 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. Materials and Methods 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 t-test, and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used for inferential analysis. Results 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%. Conclusion 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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