Dimitrios M Anestis1, Nikolaos G Foroglou2, Panagiotis C Varoutis3, Panagiotis M Monioudis3, Christos A Tsonidis3, Parmenion P Tsitsopoulos3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University School of Medicine, 49 Konstantinoupoleos str., 54642, Thessaloniki, Greece. dimanestis@yahoo.gr. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, AHEPA University Hospital, Aristotle University School of Medicine, Thessaloniki, Greece. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Hippokration General Hospital, Aristotle University School of Medicine, 49 Konstantinoupoleos str., 54642, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictive value of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), investigating whether they are comparable in predicting short- and long-term functional outcome and if their predictive ability remains unaffected by the raters' background and experience. METHODS: Patients treated in the Neurosurgery Department and the Intensive Care Unit in need for consciousness monitoring were assessed between October 1st, 2018, and December 31st, 2020, by four raters (two consultants, a resident and a nurse) using the two scales on admission and at discharge. Outcome was recorded at discharge and at 6 months. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were calculated for the prediction of mortality and poor outcome, and the identification of coma. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included. AUCs values were > 0.860 for all outcomes and raters. No significant differences were noted between the two scales. Raters' experience did not affect the scales' predictive value. Both scales showed excellent accuracy in identifying comatose patients (AUCs > 0.950). The difference between admission and discharge values was not a reliable predictor. CONCLUSION: Both the FOUR Score and GCS are reliable predictors of short- and long-term outcome, with no clear superiority among them. The application of the FOUR Score by inexperienced raters is equally reliable, without influencing negatively the predictive value.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictive value of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), investigating whether they are comparable in predicting short- and long-term functional outcome and if their predictive ability remains unaffected by the raters' background and experience. METHODS: Patients treated in the Neurosurgery Department and the Intensive Care Unit in need for consciousness monitoring were assessed between October 1st, 2018, and December 31st, 2020, by four raters (two consultants, a resident and a nurse) using the two scales on admission and at discharge. Outcome was recorded at discharge and at 6 months. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were calculated for the prediction of mortality and poor outcome, and the identification of coma. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included. AUCs values were > 0.860 for all outcomes and raters. No significant differences were noted between the two scales. Raters' experience did not affect the scales' predictive value. Both scales showed excellent accuracy in identifying comatose patients (AUCs > 0.950). The difference between admission and discharge values was not a reliable predictor. CONCLUSION: Both the FOUR Score and GCS are reliable predictors of short- and long-term outcome, with no clear superiority among them. The application of the FOUR Score by inexperienced raters is equally reliable, without influencing negatively the predictive value.
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: C Healey; Turner M Osler; Frederick B Rogers; Mark A Healey; Laurent G Glance; Patrick D Kilgo; Steven R Shackford; J Wayne Meredith Journal: J Trauma Date: 2003-04