Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score for prediction of in-hospital mortality in traumatic brain injury patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:18
|
作者
Ahmadi, Sajjad [1 ]
Sarveazad, Arash [2 ,3 ]
Babahajian, Asrin [4 ]
Ahmadzadeh, Koohyar [5 ]
Yousefifard, Mahmoud [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Fac Med, Emergency Med Res Team, Tabriz, Iran
[2] Iran Univ Med Sci, Colorectal Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran
[3] Iran Univ Med Sci, Nursing Care Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran
[4] Kurdistan Univ Med Sci, Liver & Digest Res Ctr, Res Inst Hlth Dev, Sanandaj, Iran
[5] Iran Univ Med Sci, Physiol Res Ctr, Hemmat Highway, Tehran 14665354, Iran
[6] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Pediat Chron Kidney Dis Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran
关键词
Traumatic brain injury; Prognosis; Injury Severity; Decision Tools; HEAD-INJURY; CARE; GCS; RELIABILITY; VALIDITY;
D O I
10.1007/s00068-022-02111-w
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Background Currently, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is used to assess patients' level of consciousness. Although this tool is highly popular in clinical settings, it has various limitations that reduce its applicability in certain situations. This had led researchers to look for alternative scoring systems. This study aims to compare the value of GCS and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score for prediction of mortality in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Method Online databases of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until the end of July 2022 for studies that had compared GCS and FOUR score in TBI patients. Interested outcomes were mortality and unfavorable outcome (mortality + disability). Findings are reported as area under the curve (AUC) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio. Results 20 articles (comprised of 2083 patients) were included in this study. AUC of GCS and FOUR score for prediction of in-hospital mortality after TBI was 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93) respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of the two scores for prediction of in-hospital mortality after TBI was 44.51 (95% CI 23.58-84.03) for GCS and 45.16 (95% CI 24.25-84.09) for FOUR score. As for prediction of unfavorable outcome after TBI, AUC of GCS and FOUR score were 0.95 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.95), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratios for prediction of unfavorable outcome after TBI were 66.31 (95% CI 35.05-125.45) for GCS and 45.39 (95% CI 23.09-89.23) for FOUR score. Conclusion Moderate level of evidence showed that the value of GCS and FOUR score in the prediction of in-hospital mortality and unfavorable outcome is comparable. The similar performance of these scores in assessment of TBI patients gives the medical staff the option to use either one of them according to the situation at hand.
引用
收藏
页码:1693 / 1706
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score for prediction of in-hospital mortality in traumatic brain injury patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sajjad Ahmadi
    Arash Sarveazad
    Asrin Babahajian
    Koohyar Ahmadzadeh
    Mahmoud Yousefifard
    European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 2023, 49 : 1693 - 1706
  • [2] Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale Full Outline of UnResponsiveness and Glasgow Coma Scale: Pupils Score for Predicting Outcome in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury
    Chawnchhim, Abraham L.
    Mahajan, Charu
    Kapoor, Indu
    Sinha, Tej P.
    Prabhakar, Hemanshu
    Chaturvedi, Arvind
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2024, 28 (03) : 256 - 264
  • [3] A comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in predictive modelling in traumatic brain injury
    Kasprowicz, Magdalena
    Burzynska, Malgorzata
    Melcer, Tomasz
    Kuebler, Andrzej
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2016, 30 (02) : 211 - 220
  • [4] Comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in Predicting Mortality in Critically III Patients
    Wijdicks, Eelco F. M.
    Kramer, Andrew A.
    Rohs, Thomas, Jr.
    Hanna, Susan
    Sadaka, Farid
    O'Brien, Jacklyn
    Bible, Shonna
    Dickess, Stacy M.
    Foss, Michelle
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2015, 43 (02) : 439 - 444
  • [5] Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in prediction of pediatric coma
    Jamal, Atahar
    Sankhyan, Naveen
    Jayashree, Murlidharan
    Singhi, Sunit
    Singhi, Pratibha
    WORLD JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2017, 8 (01) : 55 - 60
  • [6] Comparison of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score Coma Scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale in an emergency setting population
    Eken, Cenker
    Kartal, Mutlu
    Bacanli, Ayse
    Eray, Oktay
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2009, 16 (01) : 29 - 36
  • [7] Comparison of Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score and Glasgow Coma Scale in Medical Intensive Care Unit
    Ramazani, Jamileh
    Hosseini, Mohammad
    ANNALS OF CARDIAC ANAESTHESIA, 2019, 22 (02) : 143 - 148
  • [8] Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (Four) Score: A Prospective Study
    Bayraktar, Yesim Serife
    Sahinoglu, Mert
    Cicekci, Faruk
    Kara, Inci
    Karabagli, Hakan
    Duman, Ates
    Celik, Jale Bengi
    TURKISH NEUROSURGERY, 2019, 29 (02) : 285 - 288
  • [9] A comparison of the diagnostic power of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness scale and the Glasgow coma scale in the discharge outcome prediction of patients with traumatic brain injury admitted to the intensive care unit
    Gorji, Mohammad Ali Heidari
    Hoseini, Seyed Hosein
    Gholipur, Afshin
    Mohammadpur, Reza Ali
    SAUDI JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2014, 8 (02) : 193 - 197
  • [10] Incidence and associated in-hospital mortality of myocardial injury in patients with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ding, Huaqiang
    Hou, Xiaofeng
    Zhang, Xinhai
    Yu, Jinhui
    He, Jun
    Tang, Jiuning
    Chen, Minruo
    Tang, Maoyuan
    Ren, Qifu
    Liu, Zhi
    CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY, 2025, 249