Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed743    
    Printed19    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded82    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Comparison of full outline of unresponsiveness score and Glasgow Coma Scale in Medical Intensive Care Unit


1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Bojnourd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bojnurd, Iran
2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Jamileh Ramazani
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Bojnourd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bojnourd, North Khorasan Province
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.ACA_25_18

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2019  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 143-148

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (564 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
Context: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most commonly used scale, and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score is new validated coma scale as an alternative to GCS in the evaluation of the level of consciousness. Aim: The aim of the current study was to evaluate FOUR score and GCS ability in predicting the outcomes (Survivors, nonsurvivors) in Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). Setting and Design: This was an observational and prospective study of 300 consecutive patients admitted to the MICU during a 14 months' period. Materials and Methods: FOUR score, GCS score, and demographic characteristics of all patients were recorded in the first admission 24 h. Statistical Analysis Used: A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, Hosmer–Lemeshow test, and Logistic regression were used in the statistical analysis (95% confidence interval). Results: Data analysis showed a significant statistical difference in FOUR score and GCS score between survivors and nonsurvivors (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001; respectively). The discrimination power was good for both FOUR score and GCS (area under ROC curve: 87.3% (standard error [SE]: 2.1%), 82.6% [SE: 2.3%]; respectively). The acceptable calibration was seen just for FOUR score (χ2 = 8.059, P = 0.428). Conclusions: Both FOUR score and GCS are valuable scales for predicting outcomes in patients are admitted to the MICU; however, the FOUR score showed better discrimination and calibration than GCS, so it is superior to GCS in predicting outcomes in this patients population.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
 




1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Bojnourd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bojnurd, Iran
2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Jamileh Ramazani
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Bojnourd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bojnourd, North Khorasan Province
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.ACA_25_18

Rights and Permissions

Context: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most commonly used scale, and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score is new validated coma scale as an alternative to GCS in the evaluation of the level of consciousness. Aim: The aim of the current study was to evaluate FOUR score and GCS ability in predicting the outcomes (Survivors, nonsurvivors) in Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). Setting and Design: This was an observational and prospective study of 300 consecutive patients admitted to the MICU during a 14 months' period. Materials and Methods: FOUR score, GCS score, and demographic characteristics of all patients were recorded in the first admission 24 h. Statistical Analysis Used: A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, Hosmer–Lemeshow test, and Logistic regression were used in the statistical analysis (95% confidence interval). Results: Data analysis showed a significant statistical difference in FOUR score and GCS score between survivors and nonsurvivors (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001; respectively). The discrimination power was good for both FOUR score and GCS (area under ROC curve: 87.3% (standard error [SE]: 2.1%), 82.6% [SE: 2.3%]; respectively). The acceptable calibration was seen just for FOUR score (χ2 = 8.059, P = 0.428). Conclusions: Both FOUR score and GCS are valuable scales for predicting outcomes in patients are admitted to the MICU; however, the FOUR score showed better discrimination and calibration than GCS, so it is superior to GCS in predicting outcomes in this patients population.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article