印度重症监护病房创伤性脑损伤患者入院GCS评分与入院GCS- p和FOUR评分预测预后的比较

IF 1.7 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Acute and Critical Care Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.4266/acc.2023.00570
Nishant Agrawal, Shivakumar S Iyer, Vishwanath Patil, Sampada Kulkarni, Jignesh N Shah, Prashant Jedge
{"title":"印度重症监护病房创伤性脑损伤患者入院GCS评分与入院GCS- p和FOUR评分预测预后的比较","authors":"Nishant Agrawal,&nbsp;Shivakumar S Iyer,&nbsp;Vishwanath Patil,&nbsp;Sampada Kulkarni,&nbsp;Jignesh N Shah,&nbsp;Prashant Jedge","doi":"10.4266/acc.2023.00570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to determine the predictive power of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score and the Glasgow Coma Scale Pupil (GCS-P) score in determining outcomes for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was used to evaluate patients at 1 month and 6 months after the injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a 15-month prospective observational study. It included 50 TBI patients admitted to the ICU who met our inclusion criteria. We used Pearson's correlation coefficient to relate coma scales and outcome measures. The predictive value of these scales was determined using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calculating the area under the curve with a 99% confidence interval. All hypotheses were two-tailed, and significance was defined as P<0.01.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the present study, the GCS-P and FOUR scores among all patients on admission as well as in the subset of patients who were mechanically ventilated were statistically significant and strongly correlated with patient outcomes. The correlation coefficient of the GCS score compared to GCS-P and FOUR scores was higher and statistically significant. The areas under the ROC curve for the GCS, GCS-P, and FOUR scores and the number of computed tomography abnormalities were 0.912, 0.905, 0.937, and 0.324, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GCS, GCS-P, and FOUR scores are all excellent predictors with a strong positive linear correlation with final outcome prediction. In particular, the GCS score has the best correlation with final outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":44118,"journal":{"name":"Acute and Critical Care","volume":"38 2","pages":"226-233"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a4/b1/acc-2023-00570.PMC10265414.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of admission GCS score to admission GCS-P and FOUR scores for prediction of outcomes among patients with traumatic brain injury in the intensive care unit in India.\",\"authors\":\"Nishant Agrawal,&nbsp;Shivakumar S Iyer,&nbsp;Vishwanath Patil,&nbsp;Sampada Kulkarni,&nbsp;Jignesh N Shah,&nbsp;Prashant Jedge\",\"doi\":\"10.4266/acc.2023.00570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to determine the predictive power of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score and the Glasgow Coma Scale Pupil (GCS-P) score in determining outcomes for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was used to evaluate patients at 1 month and 6 months after the injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a 15-month prospective observational study. It included 50 TBI patients admitted to the ICU who met our inclusion criteria. We used Pearson's correlation coefficient to relate coma scales and outcome measures. The predictive value of these scales was determined using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calculating the area under the curve with a 99% confidence interval. All hypotheses were two-tailed, and significance was defined as P<0.01.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the present study, the GCS-P and FOUR scores among all patients on admission as well as in the subset of patients who were mechanically ventilated were statistically significant and strongly correlated with patient outcomes. The correlation coefficient of the GCS score compared to GCS-P and FOUR scores was higher and statistically significant. The areas under the ROC curve for the GCS, GCS-P, and FOUR scores and the number of computed tomography abnormalities were 0.912, 0.905, 0.937, and 0.324, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GCS, GCS-P, and FOUR scores are all excellent predictors with a strong positive linear correlation with final outcome prediction. In particular, the GCS score has the best correlation with final outcome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acute and Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"38 2\",\"pages\":\"226-233\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a4/b1/acc-2023-00570.PMC10265414.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acute and Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2023.00570\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2023.00570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:本研究旨在确定无反应性全轮廓评分(FOUR)和格拉斯哥昏迷瞳孔评分(GCS-P)在确定外伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者预后方面的预测能力。使用格拉斯哥预后量表(GOS)对患者在损伤后1个月和6个月进行评估。方法:我们进行了一项为期15个月的前瞻性观察研究。纳入了50例符合纳入标准的ICU收治的TBI患者。我们使用Pearson相关系数将昏迷量表和结果测量相关联。使用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线确定这些量表的预测值,计算曲线下的面积,置信区间为99%。所有假设均为双侧,显著性定义为结果:本研究中,所有入院患者以及机械通气患者亚组的GCS-P和FOUR评分均具有统计学意义,且与患者预后密切相关。GCS评分与GCS- p和FOUR评分的相关系数较高,具有统计学意义。GCS、GCS- p和FOUR评分的ROC曲线下面积和计算机断层扫描异常数分别为0.912、0.905、0.937和0.324。结论:GCS、GCS- p和FOUR评分均为极好的预测指标,与最终预后预测呈强的正线性相关。其中,GCS评分与最终结果的相关性最好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Comparison of admission GCS score to admission GCS-P and FOUR scores for prediction of outcomes among patients with traumatic brain injury in the intensive care unit in India.

Background: This study aimed to determine the predictive power of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score and the Glasgow Coma Scale Pupil (GCS-P) score in determining outcomes for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was used to evaluate patients at 1 month and 6 months after the injury.

Methods: We conducted a 15-month prospective observational study. It included 50 TBI patients admitted to the ICU who met our inclusion criteria. We used Pearson's correlation coefficient to relate coma scales and outcome measures. The predictive value of these scales was determined using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calculating the area under the curve with a 99% confidence interval. All hypotheses were two-tailed, and significance was defined as P<0.01.

Results: In the present study, the GCS-P and FOUR scores among all patients on admission as well as in the subset of patients who were mechanically ventilated were statistically significant and strongly correlated with patient outcomes. The correlation coefficient of the GCS score compared to GCS-P and FOUR scores was higher and statistically significant. The areas under the ROC curve for the GCS, GCS-P, and FOUR scores and the number of computed tomography abnormalities were 0.912, 0.905, 0.937, and 0.324, respectively.

Conclusions: The GCS, GCS-P, and FOUR scores are all excellent predictors with a strong positive linear correlation with final outcome prediction. In particular, the GCS score has the best correlation with final outcome.

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
Acute and Critical Care
Acute and Critical Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
87
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Development and implementation of an artificial intelligence-enhanced care model to improve patient safety in hospital wards in Spain. Differences in the psychological preparedness of emergency nurses for caring for victims of violence against women according to nurse gender: a nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire survey in Japan. Long-term mortality of adult patients with carbon monoxide poisoning presenting to the emergency department in Korea: a population-based cohort study. Performance evaluation of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring device (HemoVista) based on multi-channel thoracic impedance plethysmography technology. Post-intensive-care morbidity among pediatric patients in Thailand: prevalence, risk factors, and the importance of the post-intensive-care clinic.
×
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