Sajjad Ahmadi1, Arash Sarveazad2,3, Asrin Babahajian4, Koohyar Ahmadzadeh5, Mahmoud Yousefifard6,7. 1. Emergency Medicine Research Team, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. 2. Colorectal Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Nursing Care Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Liver and Digestive Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran. 5. Physiology Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Hemmat Highway, P.O Box, Tehran, 14665-354, Iran. koohyar.ahmadzadeh@gmail.com. 6. Physiology Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Hemmat Highway, P.O Box, Tehran, 14665-354, Iran. yousefifard.m@iums.ac.ir. 7. Pediatric Chronic Kidney Disease Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. yousefifard.m@iums.ac.ir.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is used to assess patients' level of consciousness. Although this tool is highly popular in clinical settings, it has various limitations that reduce its applicability in certain situations. This had led researchers to look for alternative scoring systems. This study aims to compare the value of GCS and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score for prediction of mortality in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: Online databases of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until the end of July 2022 for studies that had compared GCS and FOUR score in TBI patients. Interested outcomes were mortality and unfavorable outcome (mortality + disability). Findings are reported as area under the curve (AUC) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio. RESULTS: 20 articles (comprised of 2083 patients) were included in this study. AUC of GCS and FOUR score for prediction of in-hospital mortality after TBI was 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93) respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of the two scores for prediction of in-hospital mortality after TBI was 44.51 (95% CI 23.58-84.03) for GCS and 45.16 (95% CI 24.25-84.09) for FOUR score. As for prediction of unfavorable outcome after TBI, AUC of GCS and FOUR score were 0.95 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.95), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratios for prediction of unfavorable outcome after TBI were 66.31 (95% CI 35.05-125.45) for GCS and 45.39 (95% CI 23.09-89.23) for FOUR score. CONCLUSION: Moderate level of evidence showed that the value of GCS and FOUR score in the prediction of in-hospital mortality and unfavorable outcome is comparable. The similar performance of these scores in assessment of TBI patients gives the medical staff the option to use either one of them according to the situation at hand.
BACKGROUND: Currently, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is used to assess patients' level of consciousness. Although this tool is highly popular in clinical settings, it has various limitations that reduce its applicability in certain situations. This had led researchers to look for alternative scoring systems. This study aims to compare the value of GCS and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score for prediction of mortality in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: Online databases of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until the end of July 2022 for studies that had compared GCS and FOUR score in TBI patients. Interested outcomes were mortality and unfavorable outcome (mortality + disability). Findings are reported as area under the curve (AUC) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio. RESULTS: 20 articles (comprised of 2083 patients) were included in this study. AUC of GCS and FOUR score for prediction of in-hospital mortality after TBI was 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93) respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of the two scores for prediction of in-hospital mortality after TBI was 44.51 (95% CI 23.58-84.03) for GCS and 45.16 (95% CI 24.25-84.09) for FOUR score. As for prediction of unfavorable outcome after TBI, AUC of GCS and FOUR score were 0.95 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.95), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratios for prediction of unfavorable outcome after TBI were 66.31 (95% CI 35.05-125.45) for GCS and 45.39 (95% CI 23.09-89.23) for FOUR score. CONCLUSION: Moderate level of evidence showed that the value of GCS and FOUR score in the prediction of in-hospital mortality and unfavorable outcome is comparable. The similar performance of these scores in assessment of TBI patients gives the medical staff the option to use either one of them according to the situation at hand.
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: R M J Warnier; E van Rossum; E van Velthuijsen; W J Mulder; J M G A Schols; G I J M Kempen Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391