格拉斯哥昏迷量表的简化版--简易昏迷量表的实用性。

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurotrauma reports Pub Date : 2024-09-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1089/neur.2024.0096
Soichiro Seno, Makoto Aoki, Tetsuro Kiyozumi, Kojiro Wada, Satoshi Tomura
{"title":"格拉斯哥昏迷量表的简化版--简易昏迷量表的实用性。","authors":"Soichiro Seno, Makoto Aoki, Tetsuro Kiyozumi, Kojiro Wada, Satoshi Tomura","doi":"10.1089/neur.2024.0096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most commonly used consciousness rating scale worldwide. Although it is a sensitive and accurate way of assessing a patient's level of consciousness, it is time-consuming and requires training. We designed the Simple Coma Scale (SCS) as a simplified version of the GCS. In this study, we examined whether the SCS could predict favorable neurogenic outcomes at discharge, survival, and GCS scores in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). We analyzed the data of 1,230 patients registered in the Japan Neurotrauma Data Bank (Project 2015) between April 2015 and March 2017. In the SCS, eye, verbal, and motor scores are given based on a 3-point scoring system, with similar wording (\"Normal,\" \"Something Wrong,\" and \"None\") used for all scores. The SCS is based on a 7-point scale. The Glasgow Outcome Scale was used to assess the outcomes. For the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with the objective variable of good prognosis at discharge in the SCS and GCS, the area under the curve (AUC) for the SCS was 0.740 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.711-0.769), and that of the GCS was 0.757 (95% CI: 0.729-0.786). For ROC curves with survival as the objective variable, the AUC of the SCS was 0.751 (95% CI: 0.724-0.778), and that of the GCS was 0.764 (95% CI: 0.737-0.791). The SCS, similar to the GCS, may predict good prognosis and survival at discharge. Further analyses will continue to examine the usefulness and practicality of the SCS.</p>","PeriodicalId":74300,"journal":{"name":"Neurotrauma reports","volume":"5 1","pages":"883-889"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11512088/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Usefulness of the Simple Coma Scale, a Simplified Version of the Glasgow Coma Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Soichiro Seno, Makoto Aoki, Tetsuro Kiyozumi, Kojiro Wada, Satoshi Tomura\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/neur.2024.0096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most commonly used consciousness rating scale worldwide. Although it is a sensitive and accurate way of assessing a patient's level of consciousness, it is time-consuming and requires training. We designed the Simple Coma Scale (SCS) as a simplified version of the GCS. In this study, we examined whether the SCS could predict favorable neurogenic outcomes at discharge, survival, and GCS scores in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). We analyzed the data of 1,230 patients registered in the Japan Neurotrauma Data Bank (Project 2015) between April 2015 and March 2017. In the SCS, eye, verbal, and motor scores are given based on a 3-point scoring system, with similar wording (\\\"Normal,\\\" \\\"Something Wrong,\\\" and \\\"None\\\") used for all scores. The SCS is based on a 7-point scale. The Glasgow Outcome Scale was used to assess the outcomes. For the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with the objective variable of good prognosis at discharge in the SCS and GCS, the area under the curve (AUC) for the SCS was 0.740 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.711-0.769), and that of the GCS was 0.757 (95% CI: 0.729-0.786). For ROC curves with survival as the objective variable, the AUC of the SCS was 0.751 (95% CI: 0.724-0.778), and that of the GCS was 0.764 (95% CI: 0.737-0.791). The SCS, similar to the GCS, may predict good prognosis and survival at discharge. Further analyses will continue to examine the usefulness and practicality of the SCS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurotrauma reports\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"883-889\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11512088/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurotrauma reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/neur.2024.0096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurotrauma reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/neur.2024.0096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)是全球最常用的意识评定量表。虽然它是评估患者意识水平的一种灵敏而准确的方法,但它耗时且需要培训。我们设计了简易昏迷量表(SCS)作为 GCS 的简化版。在这项研究中,我们考察了 SCS 能否预测创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者出院时的良好神经源性结果、存活率和 GCS 评分。我们分析了 2015 年 4 月至 2017 年 3 月期间在日本神经创伤数据库(Project 2015)登记的 1230 名患者的数据。在 SCS 中,眼部、言语和运动评分基于 3 点评分系统,所有评分均使用类似的措辞("正常"、"有问题 "和 "无")。SCS 采用 7 分制。格拉斯哥结果量表用于评估结果。在以出院时预后良好为客观变量的接收者操作特征曲线(ROC)中,SCS 的曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.740(95% 置信区间[CI]:0.711-0.769),GCS 的曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.757(95% 置信区间[CI]:0.729-0.786)。对于以生存率为目标变量的 ROC 曲线,SCS 的 AUC 为 0.751(95% CI:0.724-0.778),GCS 的 AUC 为 0.764(95% CI:0.737-0.791)。SCS 与 GCS 相似,可预测良好的预后和出院时的存活率。进一步的分析将继续研究 SCS 的有用性和实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Usefulness of the Simple Coma Scale, a Simplified Version of the Glasgow Coma Scale.

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most commonly used consciousness rating scale worldwide. Although it is a sensitive and accurate way of assessing a patient's level of consciousness, it is time-consuming and requires training. We designed the Simple Coma Scale (SCS) as a simplified version of the GCS. In this study, we examined whether the SCS could predict favorable neurogenic outcomes at discharge, survival, and GCS scores in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). We analyzed the data of 1,230 patients registered in the Japan Neurotrauma Data Bank (Project 2015) between April 2015 and March 2017. In the SCS, eye, verbal, and motor scores are given based on a 3-point scoring system, with similar wording ("Normal," "Something Wrong," and "None") used for all scores. The SCS is based on a 7-point scale. The Glasgow Outcome Scale was used to assess the outcomes. For the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with the objective variable of good prognosis at discharge in the SCS and GCS, the area under the curve (AUC) for the SCS was 0.740 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.711-0.769), and that of the GCS was 0.757 (95% CI: 0.729-0.786). For ROC curves with survival as the objective variable, the AUC of the SCS was 0.751 (95% CI: 0.724-0.778), and that of the GCS was 0.764 (95% CI: 0.737-0.791). The SCS, similar to the GCS, may predict good prognosis and survival at discharge. Further analyses will continue to examine the usefulness and practicality of the SCS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Small Molecule Drug C381 Attenuates Brain Vascular Damage Following Repetitive Mild Traumatic Injury. Clinical Impact of an AI Decision Support System for Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage in CT Scans. Metacognitive Therapy for People Experiencing Persistent Post-Concussion Symptoms Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Preliminary Multiple Case-Series Study. Multicenter Study Examining Temporal Trends in Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage Over Six Years Using Joinpoint Regression. Resilience and Concussion Recovery in Minority Women: Promoting Health Equity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1