ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score and Glasgow Coma Scale in Predicting Endotracheal Intubation, Hospital Length of Stay, and Mortality Among Patients With Non-traumatic Altered Mental Status in the Emergency Department.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a commonly used assessment tool; however, it has recognized limitations, particularly in patients who are intubated or have aphasia. The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score was created to tackle these limitations. It has been studied mainly in the trauma and neuroscience setting; to our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the predictive performance of GCS and FOUR scores for endotracheal intubation and length of hospital stay in non-traumatic altered mental status patients in the emergency department (ED).
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted among adult patients from May 2024 to July 2025. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was used to evaluate and compare the predictive accuracy of the GCS and FOUR scores in predicting outcomes.
resultsA total of 240 patients were included in the study. The median age was 70 years (IQR: 21); 55.0% were female. In-hospital mortality was 39.6%. 27.9% of patients required ICU admission. The FOUR and GCS scores both demonstrated significant discriminative ability across outcomes (all p < 0.001). For in-hospital mortality, the FOUR score showed superior accuracy (AUROC 0.851, 95% CI: 0.803-0.900) compared to the GCS (0.771, 95% CI: 0.710-0.831). Similarly, in predicting endotracheal intubation, the FOUR score outperformed the GCS (AUROC 0.875 vs. 0.781). For the length of hospital stay, the FOUR score also demonstrated higher predictive value (AUROC 0.771 vs. 0.734).
conclusionThe FOUR score demonstrated superior predictive accuracy compared to the GCS across all clinical outcomes, including mortality, intubation, and length of hospital stay. It may serve as a more reliable tool for prognostication in non-traumatic patients with altered mental status.
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.