OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the simplified motor score (SMS) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) in predicting outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycInfo, evidence-based medicine reviews and Scopus and related conference proceedings were searched through 28 February 2012 for studies comparing SMS and GCS in predicting the outcomes [emergency tracheal intubation (ETI), clinically significant brain injuries (CSBI), neurosurgical intervention (NSI) and mortality] in patients with TBI. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five retrospective studies were eligible, enrolling a total of 102 132 subjects with TBI (63.4% males), with 14 670 (14.4%) ETI, 16 201 (15.9%) CSBI, 4730 (4.6%) NSI and 6725 (6.6%) mortality. Pooled AUC of the GCS and SMS were as follows: CSBI 0.79 and 0.75 (p = 0.16), NSI 0.83 and 0.81 (p = 0.34), ETI 0.85 and 0.82 (p = 0.31) and mortality 0.90 and 0.87 (p = 0.01). The difference in AUC for mortality was 0.03. Large heterogeneity between the studies was observed in all analyses (I(2 )> 50%). CONCLUSION: In patients with TBI, SMS predicts different outcomes with similar accuracy as GCS except mortality. However, due to heterogeneity and limited numbers of studies, further prospective studies are required.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the simplified motor score (SMS) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) in predicting outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycInfo, evidence-based medicine reviews and Scopus and related conference proceedings were searched through 28 February 2012 for studies comparing SMS and GCS in predicting the outcomes [emergency tracheal intubation (ETI), clinically significant brain injuries (CSBI), neurosurgical intervention (NSI) and mortality] in patients with TBI. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five retrospective studies were eligible, enrolling a total of 102 132 subjects with TBI (63.4% males), with 14 670 (14.4%) ETI, 16 201 (15.9%) CSBI, 4730 (4.6%) NSI and 6725 (6.6%) mortality. Pooled AUC of the GCS and SMS were as follows: CSBI 0.79 and 0.75 (p = 0.16), NSI 0.83 and 0.81 (p = 0.34), ETI 0.85 and 0.82 (p = 0.31) and mortality 0.90 and 0.87 (p = 0.01). The difference in AUC for mortality was 0.03. Large heterogeneity between the studies was observed in all analyses (I(2 )> 50%). CONCLUSION: In patients with TBI, SMS predicts different outcomes with similar accuracy as GCS except mortality. However, due to heterogeneity and limited numbers of studies, further prospective studies are required.
Authors: Brandon A Knettel; Christine T Knettel; Francis Sakita; Justin G Myers; Theresia Edward; Linda Minja; Blandina T Mmbaga; João Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci; Catherine Staton Journal: Injury Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 2.687
Authors: John D Corrigan; Scott Kreider; Jeffrey Cuthbert; John Whyte; Kristen Dams-O'Connor; Mark Faul; Cynthia Harrison-Felix; Gale Whiteneck; Christopher R Pretz Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Stefan J Schaller; Flora T Scheffenbichler; Somnath Bose; Nicole Mazwi; Hao Deng; Franziska Krebs; Christian L Seifert; George Kasotakis; Stephanie D Grabitz; Nicola Latronico; Timothy Houle; Manfred Blobner; Matthias Eikermann Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Cheng-Shyuan Rau; Pao-Jen Kuo; Shao-Chun Wu; Yi-Chun Chen; Hsiao-Yun Hsieh; Ching-Hua Hsieh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-12-03 Impact factor: 3.390