Peter-Marc Fortune1, Frank Shann. 1. Paediatric Care, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, UK. petermarc.fortune@manchester.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how well the full Glasgow Coma Scale and the motor response, which is a subscore of the Glasgow Coma Scale, predict the outcome in children who have sustained a traumatic brain injury. The best scores in the first 24 hrs were used. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: A pediatric intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Children admitted between January 1997 and December 1999. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Recovery with independent function (good outcome), or death, persistent coma, or dependent (bad outcome) at 6 months after the injury. Complete information was available for 130 patients. Both the full Glasgow Coma Scale and the motor response predicted outcome well: the area under the receiver operating characteristic plot was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.95) for the full score and 0.89 (0.82-0.95) for the motor response. CONCLUSIONS: Both the full Glasgow Coma Scale score and the motor response provide a useful indication of long-term outcome, although neither score is sufficiently accurate to be used to limit treatment. The full Glasgow Coma Scale does not have a linear relationship with mortality, and there is poor interobserver agreement. The motor response should be used in children in preference to the full Glasgow Coma Scale; the predictive power is equivalent to the full Glasgow Coma Scale, there is a linear relationship to mortality, and it is easier to collect accurately.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how well the full Glasgow Coma Scale and the motor response, which is a subscore of the Glasgow Coma Scale, predict the outcome in children who have sustained a traumatic brain injury. The best scores in the first 24 hrs were used. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: A pediatric intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Children admitted between January 1997 and December 1999. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Recovery with independent function (good outcome), or death, persistent coma, or dependent (bad outcome) at 6 months after the injury. Complete information was available for 130 patients. Both the full Glasgow Coma Scale and the motor response predicted outcome well: the area under the receiver operating characteristic plot was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.95) for the full score and 0.89 (0.82-0.95) for the motor response. CONCLUSIONS: Both the full Glasgow Coma Scale score and the motor response provide a useful indication of long-term outcome, although neither score is sufficiently accurate to be used to limit treatment. The full Glasgow Coma Scale does not have a linear relationship with mortality, and there is poor interobserver agreement. The motor response should be used in children in preference to the full Glasgow Coma Scale; the predictive power is equivalent to the full Glasgow Coma Scale, there is a linear relationship to mortality, and it is easier to collect accurately.
Authors: Matthew P Kirschen; Megan Snyder; Madeline Winters; Rebecca Ichord; Robert A Berg; Vinay Nadkarni; Alexis Topjian Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: B A Leidel; T Lindner; S Wolf; V Bogner; A Steinbeck; N Börner; C Peiser; H J Audebert; P Biberthaler; K-G Kanz Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 0.840
Authors: B A Leidel; T Lindner; S Wolf; V Bogner; A Steinbeck; N Börner; C Peiser; H J Audebert; P Biberthaler; K-G Kanz Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Heather T Keenan; Amy E Clark; Richard Holubkov; Charles S Cox; Rajan P Patel; Kevin R Moore; Linda Ewing-Cobbs Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Brian F Flaherty; Margaret L Jackson; Charles S Cox; Amy Clark; Linda Ewing-Cobbs; Richard Holubkov; Kevin R Moore; Rajan P Patel; Heather T Keenan Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Sarah Murphy; Neal J Thomas; Shira J Gertz; John Beca; James F Luther; Michael J Bell; Stephen R Wisniewski; Adam L Hartman; Robert C Tasker Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Simranjeet Benipal; Nathan Kuppermann; Daniel J Tancredi; Frederick P Rivara; Jin Wang; Daniel K Nishijima Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Natasha L Heather; José G B Derraik; John Beca; Paul L Hofman; Rangi Dansey; James Hamill; Wayne S Cutfield Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240