We have located links that may give you full text access.
FOUR Score Predicts Early Outcome in Patients After Traumatic Brain Injury.
Neurocritical Care 2017 April
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine whether the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score, which includes eyes opening (E), motor function (M), brainstem reflex (B), and respiratory pattern (R), can be used as an alternate method to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients.
METHODS: From January 2015 to June 2015, patients with isolated TBI admitted to the ICU were enrolled. Three advanced practice nurses administered the FOUR score, GCS, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), and Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) concurrently from ICU admissions. The endpoint of observation was mortality when the patients left the ICU. Data are presented as frequency with percentages, mean with standard deviation, or median with interquartile range. Each measurement tool used area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to compare the predictive power between these four tools. In addition, the difference between survival and death was estimated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
RESULTS: From 55 TBI patients, males (72.73 %) were represented more than females, the mean age was 63.1 ± 17.9, and 19 of 55 observations (35 %) had a maximum FOUR score of 16. The overall mortality rate was 14.6 %. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 74.47 % for the FOUR score, 74.73 % for the GCS, 81.78 % for the APACHE II, and 53.32 % for the TISS. The FOUR score has similar predictive power of mortality compared to the GCS and APACHE II. Each of the parameters-E, M, B, and R-of the FOUR score showed a significant difference between mortality and survival group, while the verbal and eye-opening components of the GCS did not.
CONCLUSION: Having similar predictive power of mortality compared to the GCS and APACHE II, the FOUR score can be used as an alternative in the prediction of early mortality in TBI patients in the ICU.
METHODS: From January 2015 to June 2015, patients with isolated TBI admitted to the ICU were enrolled. Three advanced practice nurses administered the FOUR score, GCS, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), and Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) concurrently from ICU admissions. The endpoint of observation was mortality when the patients left the ICU. Data are presented as frequency with percentages, mean with standard deviation, or median with interquartile range. Each measurement tool used area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to compare the predictive power between these four tools. In addition, the difference between survival and death was estimated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
RESULTS: From 55 TBI patients, males (72.73 %) were represented more than females, the mean age was 63.1 ± 17.9, and 19 of 55 observations (35 %) had a maximum FOUR score of 16. The overall mortality rate was 14.6 %. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 74.47 % for the FOUR score, 74.73 % for the GCS, 81.78 % for the APACHE II, and 53.32 % for the TISS. The FOUR score has similar predictive power of mortality compared to the GCS and APACHE II. Each of the parameters-E, M, B, and R-of the FOUR score showed a significant difference between mortality and survival group, while the verbal and eye-opening components of the GCS did not.
CONCLUSION: Having similar predictive power of mortality compared to the GCS and APACHE II, the FOUR score can be used as an alternative in the prediction of early mortality in TBI patients in the ICU.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app