4.4 Article

The FOUR Score and GCS as Predictors of Outcome After Traumatic Brain Injury

Journal

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 52-57

Publisher

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-013-9947-6

Keywords

Coma Scale; Outcome prediction; Traumatic brain injury

Funding

  1. Sigma Theta Tau International

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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. 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. 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). FOUR is comparable to GCS in terms of predictive ability for functional status, cognitive outcome 3 months post-injury, and in-hospital mortality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available