BACKGROUND: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a routine component of a neurological exam for critically ill traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients, yet has been criticized for not accurately depicting verbal status among intubated patients or including brain stem reflexes. Preliminary research on the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) Scale suggests it overcomes these limitations. Research is needed to determine correlations with patient outcomes. The aims of this study were to: (1) examine correlations between 24 and 72 h FOUR and GCS scores and functional/cognitive outcomes; (2) determine relationship between 24 and 72 h FOUR scores and mortality. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Data gathered on adult TBI patients at a Level I trauma center. FOUR scores assigned at 24, 72 h. Functional outcome measured by functional independence measure scores at rehabilitation discharge; cognitive status measured by Weschler Memory Scale scores 3 months post-injury. RESULTS: n = 136. Mean age 53.1. 72 h FOUR and GCS scores correlated with functional outcome (r s = 0.34, p = 0.05; r s = 0.39, p = 0.02), but not cognitive status. Receiver operating characteristic curves were comparable for FOUR and GCS at 24 and 72 h for functional status (24 h FOUR, GCS = 0.625, 0.602, respectively; 72 h FOUR, GCS = 0.640, 0.688), cognitive status (24 h FOUR, GCS = 0.703, 0.731; 72 h FOUR, GCS = 0.837, 0.674), and mortality (24 h FOUR, GCS = 0.913, 0.935; 72 h FOUR, GCS = 0.837, 0.884). CONCLUSIONS: FOUR is comparable to GCS in terms of predictive ability for functional status, cognitive outcome 3 months post-injury, and in-hospital mortality.
BACKGROUND: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a routine component of a neurological exam for critically ill traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients, yet has been criticized for not accurately depicting verbal status among intubated patients or including brain stem reflexes. Preliminary research on the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) Scale suggests it overcomes these limitations. Research is needed to determine correlations with patient outcomes. The aims of this study were to: (1) examine correlations between 24 and 72 h FOUR and GCS scores and functional/cognitive outcomes; (2) determine relationship between 24 and 72 h FOUR scores and mortality. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Data gathered on adult TBIpatients at a Level I trauma center. FOUR scores assigned at 24, 72 h. Functional outcome measured by functional independence measure scores at rehabilitation discharge; cognitive status measured by Weschler Memory Scale scores 3 months post-injury. RESULTS: n = 136. Mean age 53.1. 72 h FOUR and GCS scores correlated with functional outcome (r s = 0.34, p = 0.05; r s = 0.39, p = 0.02), but not cognitive status. Receiver operating characteristic curves were comparable for FOUR and GCS at 24 and 72 h for functional status (24 h FOUR, GCS = 0.625, 0.602, respectively; 72 h FOUR, GCS = 0.640, 0.688), cognitive status (24 h FOUR, GCS = 0.703, 0.731; 72 h FOUR, GCS = 0.837, 0.674), and mortality (24 h FOUR, GCS = 0.913, 0.935; 72 h FOUR, GCS = 0.837, 0.884). CONCLUSIONS: FOUR is comparable to GCS in terms of predictive ability for functional status, cognitive outcome 3 months post-injury, and in-hospital mortality.
Authors: M G Stineman; J A Shea; A Jette; C J Tassoni; K J Ottenbacher; R Fiedler; C V Granger Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Latha G Stead; Eelco F M Wijdicks; Anjali Bhagra; Rahul Kashyap; M Fernanda Bellolio; David L Nash; Sailaja Enduri; Raquel Schears; Bamlet William Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2008-09-20 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Eelco F M Wijdicks; William R Bamlet; Boby V Maramattom; Edward M Manno; Robyn L McClelland Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Latha Ganti Stead; Aakash N Bodhit; Pratik Shashikant Patel; Yasamin Daneshvar; Keith R Peters; Anna Mazzuoccolo; Sudeep Kuchibhotla; Christa Pulvino; Kelsey Hatchitt; Lawrence Lottenberg; Marie-Carmelle Elie-Turenne; Robyn M Hoelle; Abhijna Vedula; Andrea Gabrielli; Bayard D Miller; John H Slish; Michael Falgiani; Tricia Falgiani; J Adrian Tyndall Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2013-02-27
Authors: Dimitrios M Anestis; Nikolaos G Foroglou; Panagiotis C Varoutis; Panagiotis M Monioudis; Christos A Tsonidis; Parmenion P Tsitsopoulos Journal: Acta Neurol Belg Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 2.471