无反应全大纲评分与格拉斯哥昏迷评分对意识受损儿童预后预测的比较分析。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Bablu Kumar Gaur, Mohamad Habib F Meman, Shruti Jain
{"title":"无反应全大纲评分与格拉斯哥昏迷评分对意识受损儿童预后预测的比较分析。","authors":"Bablu Kumar Gaur, Mohamad Habib F Meman, Shruti Jain","doi":"10.1055/a-2627-1974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare two distinct consciousness evaluation scores (the pediatric Glasgow coma scale [GCS] scale and the full outline of unresponsive [FOUR] score) to predict outcomes for children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit with impaired consciousness.Children aged between 2 and 18 years who presented with impaired consciousness were included in this longitudinal study. The lead investigator evaluated the pediatric GCS score and the FOUR score. The first 3 days' score readings of both the scores were taken for analysis. The primary outcome of children was recorded as in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was functional outcome measured by the modified Rankin scale.A total of 78 children presented with impaired consciousness were eligible for statistical analysis. Survivors and nonsurvivors had significantly different FOUR and GCS scores at admission, 24 and 48 hours (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). The predictive accuracy of the FOUR scale at admission was slightly higher than GCS considering that the area under the curve (AUC) for the FOUR score was higher (AUC = 0.850; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.735-0.956) than GCS (AUC = 0.834; 95% CI: 0.735-0.934). The projected outcome based on the FOUR score and the actual patient outcomes were statistically significantly correlated (<i>p</i> = 0.021). Results showed that the FOUR scores had higher sensitivity (89%) specificity (84%), and negative predictive value (83%) than the GSC scale.The FOUR at admission was a better predictor of the outcome as compared with the Glasgow coma scale. More sensitivity of the FOUR scores than GCS makes it an advisable predictive model for children with impaired consciousness.</p>","PeriodicalId":19421,"journal":{"name":"Neuropediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Full Outline of Unresponsive Score and Glasgow Coma Scale Score for Outcomes Prediction in Children with Impaired Consciousness.\",\"authors\":\"Bablu Kumar Gaur, Mohamad Habib F Meman, Shruti Jain\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2627-1974\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to compare two distinct consciousness evaluation scores (the pediatric Glasgow coma scale [GCS] scale and the full outline of unresponsive [FOUR] score) to predict outcomes for children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit with impaired consciousness.Children aged between 2 and 18 years who presented with impaired consciousness were included in this longitudinal study. The lead investigator evaluated the pediatric GCS score and the FOUR score. The first 3 days' score readings of both the scores were taken for analysis. The primary outcome of children was recorded as in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was functional outcome measured by the modified Rankin scale.A total of 78 children presented with impaired consciousness were eligible for statistical analysis. Survivors and nonsurvivors had significantly different FOUR and GCS scores at admission, 24 and 48 hours (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). The predictive accuracy of the FOUR scale at admission was slightly higher than GCS considering that the area under the curve (AUC) for the FOUR score was higher (AUC = 0.850; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.735-0.956) than GCS (AUC = 0.834; 95% CI: 0.735-0.934). The projected outcome based on the FOUR score and the actual patient outcomes were statistically significantly correlated (<i>p</i> = 0.021). Results showed that the FOUR scores had higher sensitivity (89%) specificity (84%), and negative predictive value (83%) than the GSC scale.The FOUR at admission was a better predictor of the outcome as compared with the Glasgow coma scale. More sensitivity of the FOUR scores than GCS makes it an advisable predictive model for children with impaired consciousness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropediatrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2627-1974\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2627-1974","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在比较两种不同的意识评估评分(儿童格拉斯哥昏迷量表[GCS]和无反应的完整大纲[FOUR]评分),以预测意识受损入住儿科重症监护病房的儿童的预后。年龄在2至18岁之间表现为意识受损的儿童包括在这项纵向研究中。首席研究员评估了儿童GCS评分和FOUR评分。取前3天的两组分数读数进行分析。儿童的主要结局记录为住院死亡率。次要终点为功能终点,采用改良Rankin量表测量。共有78名儿童表现为意识受损,符合统计分析条件。幸存者和非幸存者在入院、24和48小时时的FOUR和GCS评分有显著差异(p p = 0.021)。结果显示,与GSC量表相比,FOUR评分具有更高的敏感性(89%)、特异性(84%)和阴性预测值(83%)。与格拉斯哥昏迷评分相比,入院时的FOUR评分能更好地预测预后。FOUR评分比GCS更敏感,使其成为意识受损儿童的明智预测模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Full Outline of Unresponsive Score and Glasgow Coma Scale Score for Outcomes Prediction in Children with Impaired Consciousness.

This study aimed to compare two distinct consciousness evaluation scores (the pediatric Glasgow coma scale [GCS] scale and the full outline of unresponsive [FOUR] score) to predict outcomes for children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit with impaired consciousness.Children aged between 2 and 18 years who presented with impaired consciousness were included in this longitudinal study. The lead investigator evaluated the pediatric GCS score and the FOUR score. The first 3 days' score readings of both the scores were taken for analysis. The primary outcome of children was recorded as in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was functional outcome measured by the modified Rankin scale.A total of 78 children presented with impaired consciousness were eligible for statistical analysis. Survivors and nonsurvivors had significantly different FOUR and GCS scores at admission, 24 and 48 hours (p < 0.0001). The predictive accuracy of the FOUR scale at admission was slightly higher than GCS considering that the area under the curve (AUC) for the FOUR score was higher (AUC = 0.850; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.735-0.956) than GCS (AUC = 0.834; 95% CI: 0.735-0.934). The projected outcome based on the FOUR score and the actual patient outcomes were statistically significantly correlated (p = 0.021). Results showed that the FOUR scores had higher sensitivity (89%) specificity (84%), and negative predictive value (83%) than the GSC scale.The FOUR at admission was a better predictor of the outcome as compared with the Glasgow coma scale. More sensitivity of the FOUR scores than GCS makes it an advisable predictive model for children with impaired consciousness.

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
Neuropediatrics
Neuropediatrics 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: For key insights into today''s practice of pediatric neurology, Neuropediatrics is the worldwide journal of choice. Original articles, case reports and panel discussions are the distinctive features of a journal that always keeps abreast of current developments and trends - the reason it has developed into an internationally recognized forum for specialists throughout the world. Pediatricians, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and neurobiologists will find it essential reading.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信