Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to intensive care units and emergency departments: A quantitative systematic review.
Frida Krag Brun, Vilde Holte Fagertun, Marie Hamilton Larsen, Marianne Trygg Solberg
{"title":"Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to intensive care units and emergency departments: A quantitative systematic review.","authors":"Frida Krag Brun, Vilde Holte Fagertun, Marie Hamilton Larsen, Marianne Trygg Solberg","doi":"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.03.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score used by nurses and physicians to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments (EDs).</p><p><strong>Review method used: </strong>This systematic review was guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and followed the reporting standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A systematic search was conducted using the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>All authors performed the study selection process, data collection, and assessment of quality. The following psychometric properties were addressed: inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six articles were included. The GCS and the FOUR scores demonstrated excellent reliability and very strong validity when used by nurses and physicians to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to the ICU and ED. The FOUR score demonstrated slightly higher overall reliability and validity than the GCS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review indicates that the FOUR score is especially suitable for assessing the level of consciousness in patients admitted to the ICU and ED. The FOUR score demonstrated higher reliability and validity than the GCS, making it a promising alternative assessment scale, despite the GCS's longstanding use in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":51239,"journal":{"name":"Australian Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"101057"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2024.03.012","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score used by nurses and physicians to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments (EDs).
Review method used: This systematic review was guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and followed the reporting standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement.
Data sources: A systematic search was conducted using the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE.
Review methods: All authors performed the study selection process, data collection, and assessment of quality. The following psychometric properties were addressed: inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity.
Results: Six articles were included. The GCS and the FOUR scores demonstrated excellent reliability and very strong validity when used by nurses and physicians to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to the ICU and ED. The FOUR score demonstrated slightly higher overall reliability and validity than the GCS.
Conclusion: This systematic review indicates that the FOUR score is especially suitable for assessing the level of consciousness in patients admitted to the ICU and ED. The FOUR score demonstrated higher reliability and validity than the GCS, making it a promising alternative assessment scale, despite the GCS's longstanding use in clinical practice.
期刊介绍：
Australian Critical Care is the official journal of the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN). It is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal, providing clinically relevant research, reviews and articles of interest to the critical care community. Australian Critical Care publishes peer-reviewed scholarly papers that report research findings, research-based reviews, discussion papers and commentaries which are of interest to an international readership of critical care practitioners, educators, administrators and researchers. Interprofessional articles are welcomed.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
