ArticleJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock
Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score versus Glasgow Coma Scale in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Altered Mental Status.
Article in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score has advantages over Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS); as it can be used in intubated patients and provides greater neurological details. It has been studied mainly in the trauma and neuroscience setting. Our primary objective was to compare the FOUR versus GCS score as predictors of mortality at 30 days and poor functional outcome at 3 months among nontrauma patients in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted on adult patients presenting with altered mental status (duration <7 days) in the ED (March 2019-November 2020). Data collection included demographic and clinical features, the GCS and FOUR scores, the feasibility of acquiring and interpreting FOUR on a Likert scale, duration of hospital stay, 30-day mortality, and functional outcome at 3 months on the modified Rankin Scale. Trained emergency medicine residents managing the patient collected the data. The area under receiver's operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was used to compare the accuracy of the GCS and FOUR scores in predicting outcomes. The FOUR score equivalent of GCS cutoffs for categorizing neurological impairment (mild, moderate, and severe) was also investigated. Results: Two hundred and ninety-one patients were included, with a mean age of 50.3 years and 67.4% males. Most patients (40.2%) had altered mental status for 1-3 days and hepatic encephalopathy was the most common ED diagnosis. The mortality at 30 days was 66.7% (194 of 291), and 88% (256 of 291) of patients had poor functional outcomes at 3 months. The AUROCs for predicting 30-day mortality were similar for both the scores (GCS: 0.70, FOUR: 0.71, and the Conclusion: The FOUR score is similar to GCS in predicting mortality at 30 days and poor neurological outcomes at 3 months among nontrauma patients of ED. Moreover, it was found that the FOUR score is "easy" to assess and interpret by the emergency residents.
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.