Observational studyActa neurologica Belgica2023
Comparison of the prognostic value of coma scales among health-care professionals: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the prognostic validity of three simplified consciousness assessment scales with the Glasgow Coma Scale.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the predictive value of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), investigating whether they are comparable in predicting short- and long-term functional outcome and if their predictive ability remains unaffected by the raters' background and experience.
methodsPatients treated in the Neurosurgery Department and the Intensive Care Unit in need for consciousness monitoring were assessed between October 1st, 2018, and December 31st, 2020, by four raters (two consultants, a resident and a nurse) using the two scales on admission and at discharge. Outcome was recorded at discharge and at 6 months. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were calculated for the prediction of mortality and poor outcome, and the identification of coma.
resultsEighty-six patients were included. AUCs values were > 0.860 for all outcomes and raters. No significant differences were noted between the two scales. Raters' experience did not affect the scales' predictive value. Both scales showed excellent accuracy in identifying comatose patients (AUCs > 0.950). The difference between admission and discharge values was not a reliable predictor.
conclusionBoth the FOUR Score and GCS are reliable predictors of short- and long-term outcome, with no clear superiority among them. The application of the FOUR Score by inexperienced raters is equally reliable, without influencing negatively the predictive value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.