BACKGROUND: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is considered the gold standard for assessment of unconsciousness in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) against which other scales are compared. To overcome the disadvantages of GCS, the Full Outline Of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score was proposed. We aimed to compare the predictability of FOUR score and GCS for early mortality, after moderate and severe TBI. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of patients with moderate and severe TBI. Both FOUR and GCS scores were determined at admission. The primary outcome was mortality at the end of 2 weeks of injury. RESULTS: A total of 138 (117 males) patients were included in the study. Out of these, 17 (12.3 %) patients died within 2 weeks of injury. The mean GCS and FOUR scores were 9.5 (range, 3-13) and 11 (0-16), respectively. The total GCS and FOUR scores were significantly lower in patients who did not survive. At a cut-off score of 7 for FOUR score, the AUC was 0.97, with sensitivity of 97.5 and specificity of 88.2 % (p < 0.0001). For GCS score, AUC was 0.95, with sensitivity of 98.3 % and specificity of 82.4 % with cut-off score of 6 (p < 0.0001). The correlation coefficient was 0.753 (p < 0.001) between the GCS and FOUR scores. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive value of the FOUR score on admission of patients with TBI is no better than the GCS score.
BACKGROUND: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is considered the gold standard for assessment of unconsciousness in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) against which other scales are compared. To overcome the disadvantages of GCS, the Full Outline Of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score was proposed. We aimed to compare the predictability of FOUR score and GCS for early mortality, after moderate and severe TBI. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of patients with moderate and severe TBI. Both FOUR and GCS scores were determined at admission. The primary outcome was mortality at the end of 2 weeks of injury. RESULTS: A total of 138 (117 males) patients were included in the study. Out of these, 17 (12.3 %) patients died within 2 weeks of injury. The mean GCS and FOUR scores were 9.5 (range, 3-13) and 11 (0-16), respectively. The total GCS and FOUR scores were significantly lower in patients who did not survive. At a cut-off score of 7 for FOUR score, the AUC was 0.97, with sensitivity of 97.5 and specificity of 88.2 % (p < 0.0001). For GCS score, AUC was 0.95, with sensitivity of 98.3 % and specificity of 82.4 % with cut-off score of 6 (p < 0.0001). The correlation coefficient was 0.753 (p < 0.001) between the GCS and FOUR scores. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive value of the FOUR score on admission of patients with TBI is no better than the GCS score.