Abstract
Background: In the last few decades, different coma scoring scales have been proposed. The purpose of this study is to compare two coma scales:, the GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) and the FOUR score (Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score), aiming to examine which scale is better for predicting outcome in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients in the prehospital setting.Methods: We evaluated the GCS and FOUR scores in the prehospital setting at three different prehospital timepoints, and we reassessed the scores in surviving patients 24 hours, one month and three months after the injury. Then, we compared the outcomes.We used the χ² method, and based on the analysis with the best cut-off point for each model, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity and correct prediction of outcomes with four severity scores. The Youden index, Z score, McNemar's test and ROC curve were also assessed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Both scales were ranked with gain ratios.Results: We included 200 TBI patients who were treated in a prehospital setting by a prehospital specialized medical unit. In terms of the predictions of positive outcomes, our study showed the following:1. Twenty-four hours after the injury, the best cut-off points obtained were from the FOUR 1 and GCS 1 models.2. One month after the injury, the best cut-off points obtained were from the following models: FOUR 2 and GCS 3 as well as FOUR 3 and GCS 3.3. Three months after the injury, the best cut-off points obtained were from the following models: FOUR 2 and GCS 1, FOUR 3 and GCS 1, and GCS 1 and GCS 2.Conclusions: In our study, the results of our research confirm that there are no practical or clinical differences between the GCS and FOUR scores in terms of predicting morality outcomes 24 hours, one month, and three months after injury. No statistically significant differences were found in the Youden index or the area under the ROC curve 24 hours, one month or three months after the injury.
Predicting outcome in acute stroke
