Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41492901›Full record

ArticleJournal of trauma and injury2025

Comparing the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) for predicting outcomes in traumatic brain injury: a comparative study.

Harsh Jain, Jishnu N Nair, Davuluri Venkata Shashank, Visvanathan Krishnaswamy, Krishnamurthy Ganesh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of trauma and injury, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Harsh JainSri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, India.
Jishnu N NairDepartment of Neurosurgery, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, India.
Davuluri Venkata ShashankDepartment of Neurosurgery, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, India.
Visvanathan KrishnaswamyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, India.
Krishnamurthy GaneshDepartment of Neurosurgery, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTraumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, socioeconomic loss, and diminished quality of life among survivors of all injury types. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), though commonly used in the intensive care unit (ICU), has limitations that may be addressed by the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score. We compared the ability of the FOUR and GCS scores to predict outcomes in patients with TBI.

methodsThis prospective observational study included all patients presenting with head injury who survived beyond 24 hours between 2020 and 2022. Basic demographic data, prehospital care details, and neurological findings were collected. TBI severity was assessed using both the GCS and FOUR scores, and outcomes were graded using the Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS).

resultsAmong 225 patients (mean age, 42.4±19.7 years; male sex, 77.8%) with TBIs, the mortality rate was 4.4%, and 15.1% experienced a poor outcome (GOS ≤2). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed good predictive ability for both the FOUR score (area under the curve [AUC], 0.85) and GCS (AUC, 0.88). FOUR score ≤12 and GCS ≤10 were identified as optimal cutoff values for predicting poor outcomes (P<0.001), with the FOUR score demonstrating sensitivity and specificity of 79.4% and 77.5%, respectively. A FOUR score ≤12 at admission was significantly associated with intubation (odds ratio [OR], 8.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-14.4; P<0.001), tracheostomy (OR, 21.8; 95% CI. 6.9-68.8; P<0.001), and neurological complications, including mental function deficits (OR, 7.5; 95% CI, 3.2-17.7; P<0.001), cranial nerve palsy (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.6-10.4; P=0.002), and motor deficits (OR, 9.4; 95% CI, 4.6-19.2; P<0.001). A strong correlation was observed between the FOUR score and GOS (r=0.7).

conclusionsThe FOUR score is a reliable tool for assessing TBI severity and predicting outcomes, with performance comparable to the GCS. An admission FOUR score ≤12 was associated with poor neurological outcomes, increased need for advanced airway management, and long-term disability. By capturing additional neurological parameters beyond the GCS, the FOUR score may offer clinical advantages in ICU settings for early prognostication and management of patients with TBI.

Indexed as

Brain injuriesCritical careFull Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) scoreGlasgow Coma ScaleWounds and injuries

Identifiers

PMID41492901
PMCPMC12800527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.