Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30411302›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2019

The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) Score and Its Use in Outcome Prediction: A Scoping Systematic Review of the Adult Literature.

A Almojuela, M Hasen, F A Zeiler

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

A AlmojuelaSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. umalmoja@myumanitoba.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3343-7546
M HasenSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
F A ZeilerSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
University of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Full Outline of UnResponsivness (FOUR) score is a neurological assessment score. Its theoretical benefit over preexisting scores is its evaluation of brainstem reflexes and respiratory pattern which may allow better assessment of patients with severe neurologic impairment.

objectiveOur goal was to perform a scoping systematic review on the available literature for FOUR score and outcome prediction in critically ill patients. The primary outcome of interest was patient global outcome, as assessed by any of: mortality, modified Rankin Score, Glasgow Outcome Score, or any other functional or neuropsychiatric outcome. Information on interobserver reliability was also extracted.

methodsMEDLINE and five other databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were: humans, adults, and children; prospective randomized controlled trial; prospective cohort, cohort/control, case series, prospective, and retrospective studies. Two reviewers independently screened the results. Full texts for citations passing this initial screen were obtained. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to each article to obtain final articles for review. Results on adult populations are presented here. Data are reported following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines.

resultsThe initial search yielded 1709 citations. Of those used, 49 were based on adult and 6 on pediatric populations. All but 8 retrospective adult studies were performed prospectively. Patient categories included traumatic brain injury, intraventricular hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, general/combined neurology and neurosurgery, post-cardiac arrest, medicine/general critical illness, and patients in the emergency department. A total of 9092 adult patients were studied. Fourteen studies demonstrated good interobserver reliability of the FOUR score. Nine studies demonstrated prognostic value of the FOUR score in predicting mortality and functional outcomes. Thirty-two studies demonstrated equivalency or superiority of the FOUR score compared to Glasgow Coma Score in prediction of mortality and functional outcomes.

conclusionsThe FOUR score has been shown to be a useful outcome predictor in many patients with depressed level of consciousness. It displays good inter-rater reliability among physicians and nurses.

Indexed as

Critical CareAdultConsciousness DisordersGlasgow Coma ScaleHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsClinical scoringCritical illnessFOUR scoreNeurological illnessPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID30411302
OpenAlexW2899866829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.