Emergency. 2018; 6 (1): e42 OR I G I N A L RE S E A RC H Glasgow Coma Scale and FOUR Score in Predicting the Mortality of Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study Parisa Ghelichkhani1, Maryam Esmaeili2∗, Mostafa Hosseini3, Khatereh Seylani4 1. Department of Intensive Care Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, school of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Received: April 2018; Accepted: June 2018; Published online: 14 July 2018 Abstract: Introduction: Many scoring models have been proposed for evaluating level of consciousness in trauma pa- tients. The aim of this study is to compare Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score in predicting the mortality of trauma patients. Methods: In this diagnostic accuracy study trauma patients hospitalized in intensive care unit (ICU) of 2 educational hospitals were evaluated. GCS and FOUR score of each patient were simultaneously calculated on admission as well as 6, 12 and 24 hours after that. The predictive values of the two scores and their area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve were compared. Results: 90 patients were included in the present study (mean age 39.4±17.3; 74.4% male). Compar- ing the area under the ROC curve of GCS and FOUR score showed that these values were not different at any of the evaluated times: on admission (p=0.68), and 6 hours (p=0.13), 12 hours (p=0.18), and 24 hours (p=0.20) after that. Conclusion: The results of our study showed that, GCS and FOUR score have the same value in predicting the mortality of trauma patients. Both tools had high predictive power in predicting the outcome at the time of discharge. Keywords: Glasgow Coma Scale; Wounds and Injuries; Trauma Severity Indices; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Criti- cal Care; Intensive Care Units © Copyright (2018) Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Cite this article as: Ghelichkhani P, Esmaeili M, Hosseini M, Seylani Kh. Glasgow Coma Scale and FOUR Score in Predicting the Mortality of Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study. Emergency. 2018; 6(1): e42. 1. Introduction I n severe injuries, especially traumatic brain injuries, a considerable portion of the patients are hospitalized in intensive care unit (ICU). In recent years, the prevalence of injuries has significantly increased in developing coun- tries. Based on the latest reports of world health organiza- tion, injury is the tenth cause of mortality in the world and third cause of death in Iran. This high prevalence leads to in- creased treatment costs, loss of society’s work force, greater burden of diseases and increase in the workload of treatment staff, especially nurses (1-3). By using appropriate tools for ∗Corresponding Author: Maryam Esmaeili; School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Nosrat St., Tohid Sq.,Tehran,Iran. Tel: +982166937120 Fax: +982166904252 Email: mesmaeilie77@gmail.com, es- maeili_m@tums.ac.ir measuring the level of consciousness to evaluate the sever- ity of the injury in head trauma patients, nurses will be able to prepare for taking critical measures for the injury in the shortest time and in the best possible way and reduce the dis- ability and mortality of trauma patients (4-12). Many scoring models have been proposed to evaluate level of consciousness in patients who are affected with traumatic brain injuries, the most famous of which is Glasgow coma scale. This scale has some limitations such as its low ef- ficiency in intubated patients, its poor use in cases of lan- guage differences, and not being able to evaluate the reflexes of brainstem (13, 14). In intubated patients, the verbal part is practically non-measurable and therefore, it is possible that the reported level of consciousness in these patients is lower than its real level (15). Full Outline of UnResponsive- ness (FOUR) score is another scale for evaluating level of con- sciousness, the accuracy and precision of which in critically This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com P. Ghelichkhani et al. 2 ill patients has been evaluated in only a few studies (16, 17). Availability of a scoring system that in addition to accuracy, precision, and easy use, leads to facilitation of the nursing care of trauma patients is a necessity. By providing an accurate picture of injury severity, such a sys- tem would be able to give a reflection of the outcome of the patient to the health care team. Contradicting results exist from comparing GCS and FOUR score in prediction of final outcomes. In a multi-center study, Wijdicks et al. showed that FOUR score and GCS do not differ in prediction of in- hospital mortality, although they suggested that FOUR score can be a better diagnostic tool for assessing brainstem re- flexes and respiratory pattern (17). However, Jalali and Rezaei showed that FOUR score performs better than GCS in pre- diction of mortality (18). Presence of these contradictions shows the need for carrying out more studies. Therefore, the present study was done with the aim of comparing GCS and FOUR score in predicting the mortality of trauma patients. 2. Methods 2.1. Study design and setting The present prospective diagnostic accuracy study was de- signed with the aim of comparing the 2 systems of GCS and FOUR score in predicting the outcome of trauma patients hospitalized in ICU of 2 hospitals affiliated with Shahid Be- heshti University of Medical Sciences. For this purpose, data of 90 patients were evaluated in the time interval between February and September 2017. This study was approved by the Ethics committee of Tehran University of Medical Sci- ences and Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Throughout the study, the researchers adhered to the prin- ciples indicated in the declaration of Helsinki. Before inclu- sion in the study, an informed consent was obtained from the patient or their relative. 2.2. Participants Over 14 years old trauma patients hospitalized in ICU were studied using consecutive sampling. Patients with hearing and talking disabilities and with a history of sensorimotor disability were excluded from the study. 2.3. Data gathering Demographic data (age, sex), trauma mechanism (pedestrian-car accident, motorcycle accident, falling, pedestrian-motorcycle accident, direct trauma, car rollover, and car-car accident), and length of stay in ICU were gath- ered. In addition, a checklist consisting of items used for calculating GCS (evaluation of eye, speech, and motor score) and FOUR score (evaluation of eye, motor, brainstem re- flexes, and respiratory pattern score) was also used in this study. Data were gathered by 2 trained ICU nurses who were completely familiar with data gathering tools. Before the initiation of the study, in order to approve inter-rater reliability of the 2 nurses in scoring of GCS and FOUR score, a primary study was performed in which both nurses eval- uated both scores simultaneously for the same 15 patients. The agreement rate obtained was 91% (kappa=0.91). 2.4. Index test In the present study, predictive values of GCS and FOUR score in prediction of in-hospital mortality of trauma pa- tients were assessed. The details of scoring methods of the 2 mentioned scores have been reported in previous studies (19, 20). GCS and FOUR score of each patient were simulta- neously calculated on admission as well as 6, 12 and 24 hours after that. 2.5. Reference test Death or survival of the patient at the time of discharge from the hospital was used as the reference test. Patients were fol- lowed until their discharge from the hospital and their living status at the time of discharge was evaluated. 2.6. Statistical Analysis Area under the curves reported for GCS and FOUR score have been 0.78 and 0.84, respectively (21). Therefore, by con- sidering 95% confidence interval (α=5%) and power of 90% (β=10%), sample size is calculated as about 90 patients. Data were analyzed using STATA 14.0 statistical software. Descrip- tive analyses were presented as mean and standard devia- tion, or frequency and percentage, for quantitative and qual- Table 1: Demographic and baseline characteristics of the studied patients Baseline Characteristics Value Sex Female 23(25.6) Male 67(74.4) Trauma mechanism Motorcycle accident 32 (35.6) Car accident 22 (24.4) Falling 20 (22.2) Pedestrian 10 (10.1) Other 6 (6.7) Vital signs on admission Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 115.4±6.27 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 72.5±3.16 Heart rate (beat per min) 94.6±0.26 Respiratory rate (beat per min) 18.2±9.6 Temperature (degree of Celsius) 36.9±0.3 Oxygen saturation (%) 92.2±9.9 Length of stay in ICU (days) 7.4±5.9 Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation or num- ber (%). This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com 3 Emergency. 2018; 6 (1): e42 Table 2: Mean GCS and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score at different times with 95% confidence interval (CI) Survived Non survived Mean 95% CI Mean 95% CI GCS On admission 11.3 10.6 – 12.1 5.5 4.0 – 7.1 After 6 hours 11.7 11.0 – 12.5 5.1 3.9 – 6.3 After 12 hours 11.8 11.1 – 12.5 5.6 4.9 – 6.3 After 24 hours 11.6 10.8 – 12.3 4.0 3.3 – 4.6 FOUR score On admission 12.7 11.8 – 13.6 4.1 1.8 – 6.3 After 6 hours 13.0 12.1 – 13.9 2.7 1.2 – 4.2 After 12 hours 13.9 13.1 – 14.7 3.4 2.0 – 4.8 After 24 hours 13.6 12.7 – 14.4 0.1 0.0 – 0.3 Table 3: Multiple logistic regression analysis for the values of GCS and FOUR score in predicting the morality of trauma patients with 95% confidence interval (CI) Variable Odds ratio 95% CI P* Glasgow coma scale At admission 0.72 0.53 to 0.98 0.04 6 hours 0.57 0.38 to 0.86 0.007 12 hours 0.28 0.10 to 0.76 0.01 24 hours 0.21 0.06 to 0.75 0.02 FOUR score At admission 0.79 0.62 to 0.99 0.049 6 hours 0.55 0.36 to 0.83 0.004 12 hours 0.43 0.22 to 0.84 0.01 24 hours 0.05 0.02 to 0.08 <0.0001 *: Adjusted for age, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation, need for intubation and need for sedation. itative factors, respectively. To compare mean score of GCS and FOUR score in dead and alive patients at the evaluated times, two-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc was applied. In addition, the predictive values of GCS and FOUR score were evaluated in predicting the outcome of patients via drawing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Fit- ness of the model was evaluated using Hosmer-lemeshow test and in the end, the mentioned values were compared be- tween the 2 models. In this study, p<0.05 was considered as level of significance. 3. Results 3.1. Demographic and clinical data In this study, data of 90 trauma patients hospitalized in ICU were evaluated. Mean and standard deviation of patients’ age was 39.4±17.3 years (74.4% male). The most impor- tant mechanisms of trauma were motorcycle (35.6%) and car (24.4%) accidents, and falling from a height more than 3 me- ters (13.3%). 13.3% of the patients had hypertension, 4.4% had diabetes, 3.3% had neurologic deficiencies, 2.2% had cardiovascular diseases, and 3.3% had other underlying dis- eases. Outcome of hospitalization in ICU was death in 21 cases (23.3%) (Table 1). The trend of changes in GCS and FOUR score during 24 hours based on death or survival of the patients is presented in table 2. Based on these findings mean GCS (df: 1, 87; F=6.58; p=0.01) and FOUR score (df: 1, 88; F=46.64; p<0.001) were lower in those who died compared to those who survived. 3.2. GCS and FOUR score in predicting mortality Area under the ROC curve calculated for GCS on admission and 6, 12, and 24 hours after that were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.98), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84 to 0.99), 0.95 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.99) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.0), respectively. These values were calculated as 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.99), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 1.0), 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 1.0) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97 to 1.0), respectively for FOUR score. Comparison of area un- der the ROC curve of GCS and FOUR score showed that this value was not different between the 2 systems in any of the evaluated times of on admission (p=0.68), 6 hours (p=0.13), 12 hours (p=0.18), and 24 hours (p=0.20) after that (figure 1). The correlation between predicted in-hospital mortality and the 2 scales (GCS and FOUR score) was also similar (Fig- ure 2). Findings resulting from multivariate logistic regres- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com P. Ghelichkhani et al. 4 Figure 1: Area under the ROC curve of Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score for predicting the mortality of trauma patients at different times. sion showed that with a decrease in scores of GCS and FOUR score, the probability of mortality increases in trauma pa- tients. Range of predicted mortality was similar in both GCS and FOUR score models (Table 3). 4. Discussion Based on the findings of our study, area under the ROC curve of both GCS and FOUR score on admission and 6, 12, and 24 hours after that were not different and both scales had the same predictive values in identifying the outcome at the time of discharge. In line with our study, the results of the study by Sahin et al. (2015) in evaluation of 105 patients also showed that GCS and FOUR score have similar value in prediction of patient mortality and can be used interchangeably (22). The results of a study by Atahar et al. (2017) also showed that GCS and FOUR score have the same predictive value in predic- tion of in-hospital mortality and mortality within 3 months of discharge among children (23). The findings of Gujjar et al. study showed that FOUR score is a better scale compared to GCS for evaluation of changes in level of consciousness in medical wards (24). One of the reasons for the dissimilarity of the results of this study with ours might be their different re- search environment. The research environment in our study was trauma ICU department. In line with our findings, the study by Temiz et al. (2016) also showed that FOUR score has the same prediction value as GCS in evaluating the level of consciousness and follow-up of patient’s status in neuro- surgery ICU (25). In contrast to these findings, the results of the study by Nair et al. (2017) showed that there is a statisti- cally significant difference between FOUR score and GCS in estimating the severity of injury in head traumas. They re- ported that FOUR score is a better index for evaluating the This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com 5 Emergency. 2018; 6 (1): e42 Figure 2: The correlation of Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score with in-hospital mortality of trauma patients at different times. level of consciousness in patients with head trauma (26). The results of Wolf et al. study (2011) showed that GCS is one of the proper indices in prediction of mortality in emergency medical admission (27). In this study we evaluated GCS and This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com P. Ghelichkhani et al. 6 FOUR score in 4 points of time: on admission, and 6 hours, 12 hours, and 24 hours after admission. The results showed that the mean and standard deviation of both of these scales were different between those who died and those who survived in the 4 evaluated points of time. In line with these findings were the results of a study by Gujjar et al. (2013) that evalu- ated GCS and FOUR score during the initial 3 days of patients’ hospitalization and showed that there is no significant differ- ence regarding mean value of these scales on the second and third day between dead and survived patients but there is a significant difference between these mean values on the first day (24). 5. Limitation This study also had limitations including its small sample size and being performed in 2 trauma centers. Using a larger sample size and designing a multicenter study might provide more valuable and reliable results. 6. Conclusion The results of our study showed that, GCS and FOUR score have the same value in predicting the mortality of trauma pa- tients. Both tools had high predictive power in predicting the outcome at the time of discharge. 7. Appendix 7.1. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all of participants during the different stages of this study. 7.2. Funding/Support This study was one part of the MS dissertation of the first au- thor, financially supported by Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 7.3. Conflict of interest No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors. 7.4. Author contribution Parisa Ghelichkhani, Maryam Esmaeili, and Khatereh Sey- lani designed the study. Parisa Ghelichkhani participated in data gathering. Mostafa Hosseini analyzed data. Parisa Ghe- lichkhani and Maryam Esmaeili wrote the first draft and oth- ers critically revised it. References 1. Saadat S, Yousefifard M, Asady H, Jafari AM, Fayaz M, Hosseini M. The most important causes of death in Ira- nian population; a Retrospective Cohort Study. Emer- gency. 2015;3(1):16. 2. Forouzanfar MH, Sepanlou SG, Shahraz S, BESc PN, Pourmalek F, Lozano R, et al. Evaluating causes of death and morbidity in Iran, global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors study 2010. Archives of Iranian medicine. 2014;17(5):304. 3. de Souza Nogueira L, de Alencar Domingues C, Poggetti RS, de Sousa RMC. Nursing workload in intensive care unit trauma patients: analysis of associated factors. PloS one. 2014;9(11):e112125. 4. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Zimmerman JE, Bergner M, Bastos PG, et al. The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest Journal. 1991;100(6):1619- 36. 5. Breslow MJ, Badawi O. Severity scoring in the critically ill: part 1—interpretation and accuracy of outcome predic- tion scoring systems. CHEST Journal. 2012;141(1):245- 52. 6. Nakhjavan-Shahraki B, Yousefifard M, Faridaalaee G, Shahsavari K, Oraii A, Hajighanbari MJ, et al. Perfor- mance of physiology scoring systems in prediction of in- hospital mortality of traumatic children: A prospective observational study. Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma. 2017;8:S43-S8. 7. Ahmadi S, Yousefifard M. Accuracy of Pediatric Emer- gency Care Applied Research Network Rules in Predic- tion of Clinically Important Head Injuries; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Pedi- atrics. 2017;5(12):6285-300. 8. Safari S, Yousefifard M, Baikpour M, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Abiri S, Falaki M, et al. Validation of thoracic injury rule out criteria as a decision instrument for screening of chest radiography in blunt thoracic trauma. Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma. 2016;7(2):95-100. 9. Nakhjavan-Shahraki B, Baikpour M, Yousefifard M, Nikseresht ZS, Abiri S, Mirzay Razaz J, et al. Rapid Acute Physiology Score versus Rapid Emergency Medicine Score in Trauma Outcome Prediction; a Comparative Study. Emergency (Tehran, Iran). 2017;5(1):e30. 10. Nakhjavan-Shahraki B, Yousefifard M, Hajighanbari MJ, Karimi P, Baikpour M, Mirzay Razaz J, et al. Worthing Physiological Score vs Revised Trauma Score in Outcome Prediction of Trauma patients; a Comparative Study. Emergency (Tehran, Iran). 2017;5(1):e31. 11. Nakhjavan-Shahraki B, Yousefifard M, Hajighanbari MJ, Oraii A, Safari S, Hosseini M. Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) prediction rules in identifying high risk children with mild traumatic brain injury. European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma So- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com 7 Emergency. 2018; 6 (1): e42 ciety. 2017;43(6):755-62. 12. Nakhjavan-Shahraki B, Yousefifard M, Oraii A, Sarveazad A, Hajighanbari MJ, Safari S, et al. Prediction of clini- cally important traumatic brain injury in pediatric mi- nor head trauma; proposing pediatric traumatic brain in- jury (PTBI) prognostic rule. International journal of pedi- atrics. 2017;5(1):4127-35. 13. Gill M, Martens K, Lynch EL, Salih A, Green SM. In- terrater reliability of 3 simplified neurologic scales ap- plied to adults presenting to the emergency department with altered levels of consciousness. Annals of emer- gency medicine. 2007;49(4):403-7. e1. 14. Balestreri M, Czosnyka M, Chatfield D, Steiner L, Schmidt E, Smielewski P, et al. Predictive value of Glasgow Coma Scale after brain trauma: change in trend over the past ten years. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychia- try. 2004;75(1):161-2. 15. Staff T, Eken T, Wik L, Roislien J, Sovik S. Physiologic, de- mographic and mechanistic factors predicting New In- jury Severity Score (NISS) in motor vehicle accident vic- tims. Injury. 2013;[In press]. 16. Dong PV, Cremer OL. Limitations of the use of the Glas- gow Coma Scale in intensive care patients with non- neurological primary disease: a search for alternatives. Critical Care. 2011;15(Suppl 1):P506-P. 17. Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV, Manno EM, McClelland RL. Validation of a new coma scale: the FOUR score. Annals of neurology. 2005;58(4):585-93. 18. Jalali R, Rezaei M. A comparison of the Glasgow Coma Scale score with full outline of unresponsiveness scale to predict patients’ traumatic brain injury outcomes in intensive care units. Critical care research and practice. 2014;2014:1-4. 19. Stead LG, Wijdicks EF, Bhagra A, Kashyap R, Bellolio MF, Nash DL, et al. Validation of a new coma scale, the FOUR score, in the emergency department. Neurocritical care. 2009;10(1):50-4. 20. Baratloo A, Shokravi M, Safari S, Awat KA. Predictive value of Glasgow Coma Score and Full Outline of Unre- sponsiveness score on the outcome of multiple trauma patients. Archives of Iranian medicine. 2016;19(3):215. 21. Fischer M, Ruegg S, Czaplinski A, Strohmeier M, Lehmann A, Tschan F, et al. Research Inter-rater reliabil- ity of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in critically ill patients: a prospec- tive observational study. 2010;14(Critical Care):R64. 22. Sahin AS, Sahin M, Ozturk NK, Kizilates E, KarslÄś B. Comparision Of GCS And FOUR Scores Used In The Eval- uation Of Neurological Status In Intensive Care Units. Journal of Contemporary Medicine. 2015;5(3):167-72. 23. Jamal A, Sankhyan N, Jayashree M, Singhi S, Singhi P. Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in prediction of pediatric coma. World Jour- nal of Emergency Medicine. 2017;8(1):55-60. 24. Gujjar AR, Jacob PC, Nandhagopal R, Ganguly SS, Obaidy A, Al-Asmi AR. Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score and Glasgow Coma Scale in medical patients with altered sensorium: interrater reliability and relation to outcome. Journal of critical care. 2013;28(3):316.e1-8. 25. Temiz NC, Kose G, Tehli O, Acikel C, Hatipoglu S. A com- parison between the effectiveness of full outline of un- responsiveness and glasgow coma score at neurosurgical intensive care unit patients. Turkish Neurosurgery. 2016. 26. Nair SS, Surendran A, Prabhakar RB, Chisthi MM. Com- parison between FOUR score and GCS in assessing pa- tients with traumatic head injury: a tertiary centre study. International Surgery Journal. 2017;4(2):656. 27. Wolf CA, Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, McClelland RL, editors. Further validation of the FOUR score coma scale by in- tensive care nurses. Mayo Clinic Proceedings; 2007: Else- vier. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com Introduction Methods Results Discussion Limitation Conclusion Appendix References