Douglas F Kupas1, Eric M Melnychuk2, Amanda J Young3. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA. Electronic address: dkupas@geisinger.edu. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA. 3. Center for Health Research, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Trauma victims are frequently triaged to a trauma center according to the patient's calculated Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score despite its known inconsistencies. The substitution of a simpler binary assessment of GCS-motor (GCS-m) score less than 6 (ie, "patient does not follow commands") would simplify field triage. We compare total GCS score to this binary assessment for predicting trauma outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of a statewide trauma registry includes records from 393,877 patients from 1999 to 2013. Patients with initial GCS score less than or equal to 13 were compared with those with GCS-m score less than 6 for outcomes of Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15, ISS greater than 24, death, ICU admission, need for surgery, or need for craniotomy. We judged a priori that differences less than 5% lack clinical importance. RESULTS: The relative differences between GCS and GCS-m scores less than 6 were less than 5% and thus clinically unimportant for all outcomes tested, even when statistically significant. For the 6 outcomes, the differences in areas under receiver operating characteristic curves ranged from 0.014 to 0.048. Total GCS score less than or equal to 13 was slightly more sensitive (difference 3.3%; 95% confidence interval 3.2% to 3.4%) and slightly less specific (difference -1.5%; 95% confidence interval -1.6% to -1.5%) than GCS-m score less than 6 for predicting ISS greater than 15, with similar overall accuracy (74.1% versus 74.2%). CONCLUSION: Replacement of the total GCS score with a simple binary decision point of GCS-m score less than 6, or a patient who "does not follow commands," predicts serious injury, as well as the total GCS score, and would simplify out-of-hospital trauma triage. Copyright Â
STUDY OBJECTIVE:Trauma victims are frequently triaged to a trauma center according to the patient's calculated Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score despite its known inconsistencies. The substitution of a simpler binary assessment of GCS-motor (GCS-m) score less than 6 (ie, "patient does not follow commands") would simplify field triage. We compare total GCS score to this binary assessment for predicting trauma outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of a statewide trauma registry includes records from 393,877 patients from 1999 to 2013. Patients with initial GCS score less than or equal to 13 were compared with those with GCS-m score less than 6 for outcomes of Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15, ISS greater than 24, death, ICU admission, need for surgery, or need for craniotomy. We judged a priori that differences less than 5% lack clinical importance. RESULTS: The relative differences between GCS and GCS-m scores less than 6 were less than 5% and thus clinically unimportant for all outcomes tested, even when statistically significant. For the 6 outcomes, the differences in areas under receiver operating characteristic curves ranged from 0.014 to 0.048. Total GCS score less than or equal to 13 was slightly more sensitive (difference 3.3%; 95% confidence interval 3.2% to 3.4%) and slightly less specific (difference -1.5%; 95% confidence interval -1.6% to -1.5%) than GCS-m score less than 6 for predicting ISS greater than 15, with similar overall accuracy (74.1% versus 74.2%). CONCLUSION: Replacement of the total GCS score with a simple binary decision point of GCS-m score less than 6, or a patient who "does not follow commands," predicts serious injury, as well as the total GCS score, and would simplify out-of-hospital trauma triage. Copyright Â
Authors: V Y Kong; J Odendaal; B Sartorius; D L Clarke; J L Bruce; G L Laing; T Esterhuizen Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Andrew-Paul Deeb; Heather M Phelos; Andrew B Peitzman; Timothy R Billiar; Jason L Sperry; Joshua B Brown Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Yelena G Bodien; Alice Barra; Nancy R Temkin; Jason Barber; Brandon Foreman; Mary Vassar; Claudia Robertson; Sabrina R Taylor; Amy J Markowitz; Geoffrey T Manley; Joseph T Giacino; Brian L Edlow Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 4.869
Authors: István Csók; Jürgen Grauvogel; Christian Scheiwe; Jürgen Bardutzky; Thomas Wehrum; Jürgen Beck; Peter C Reinacher; Roland Roelz Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 4.003