Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Aug;49(4):1693-1706.
doi: 10.1007/s00068-022-02111-w. Epub 2022 Sep 24.

Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score for prediction of in-hospital mortality in traumatic brain injury patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sajjad Ahmadi  1 , Arash Sarveazad  2   3 , Asrin Babahajian  4 , Koohyar Ahmadzadeh  5 , Mahmoud Yousefifard  6   7
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score for prediction of in-hospital mortality in traumatic brain injury patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sajjad Ahmadi et al. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2023 Aug.

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.

Keywords: Decision Tools; Injury Severity; Prognosis; Traumatic brain injury.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Yousefifard M, et al. Screening performance characteristic of ultrasonography and radiography in detection of pleural effusion; a meta-analysis. Emergency. 2016;4(1):1. - PubMed - PMC
    1. Warnier R, et al. Validity, reliability and feasibility of tools to identify frail older patients in inpatient hospital care: a systematic review. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(2):218–30. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Edwards SL. Using the Glasgow Coma Scale: analysis and limitations. Br J Nurs. 2001;10(2):92–101. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bahlul M, et al. Prognosis of traumatic head injury in South Tunisia: a multivariate analysis of 437 cases. J Trauma. 2004;57(2):255–61. - DOI
    1. The Brain Trauma Foundation. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The Joint Section on Neurotrauma and Critical Care. Glasgow coma scale score. J Neurotrauma. 2000;17(6–7):563–71.

LinkOut - more resources