Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Neurocritical Care
Published in: Neurocritical Care 2/2017

01-10-2017 | Original Article

Predictive Validity and Inter-Rater Reliability of the Persian Version of Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Among Unconscious Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in an Intensive Care Unit

Authors: Somayeh Momenyan, Sey.Mojtaba Mousavi, Tahmineh Dadkhahtehrani, Fatemeh Sarvi, Reza Heidarifar, Faezeh Kabiri, Erfan Mohebi, Mohammad Koohbor

Published in: Neurocritical Care | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) has some limitations when evaluating the unconscious patient. This study aims to validate the Persian version of the FOUR (Full Outline of Unresponsiveness) score as a proposed substitute.

Methods

Two nurses, two nursing students, and two physicians scored the prepared Persian version of the FOUR and GCS in 84 patients with acute brain injury. The inter-rater agreement for the FOUR and the GCS scores was evaluated by the weighted kappa (κ w). The outcome prediction power of the scales was assessed by the area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC curve.

Results

The inter-rater agreement of the FOUR was excellent (κ w = 0.923, 95 % CI, 0.874–0.971) and comparable with the one of the GCS (κ w = 0.938, 95 % CI, 0.889–0.987). The area under the curve (AUC) for predicting in-hospital mortality (modified Rankin Scale: 6) was 0.835 for the FOUR (95 % CI, 0.739–0.907) and 0.772 for the GCS (95 % CI, 0.668–0.856) (P = 0.01). AUC for predicting poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale: 3–6) for the total FOUR score was 0.983 (95 % CI, 0.928–0.999), which is comparable with 0.987 for the total GCS score (95 % CI, 0.934–1.000).

Conclusions

The researchers conclude that the Persian version of the FOUR score is a reliable and valid scale to assess unconscious patients with traumatic brain injury and can be substituted for the GCS.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV, Manno EM, McClelland RL. Validation of a new coma scale: the FOUR score. Ann Neurol. 2005;58(4):585–93.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Laureys S, Perrin F, Brédart S. Self-consciousness in non-communicative patients. Conscious Cognit. 2007;16(3):722–41.CrossRef
3.
Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. The Lancet. 1974;304(7872):81–4.CrossRef
4.
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. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75(1):161–2.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Lawrence DE. APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med. 1981;9(8):591–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Stanczak DE, White JG III, Gouview WD, Moehle KA, Daniel M, Novack T, et al. Assessment of level of consciousness following severe neurological insult: a comparison of the psychometric qualities of the glasgow coma scale and the comprehensive level of consciousness scale. J Neurosurg. 1984;60(5):955–60.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gill M, Martens K, Lynch EL, Salih A, Green SM. Interrater reliability of 3 simplified neurologic scales applied to adults presenting to the emergency department with altered levels of consciousness. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(4):403–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Wolf CA, Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, McClelland RL. Further validation of the FOUR score coma scale by intensive care nurses. Pro Mayo Clinic 2007;82:435–8.
9.
Wijdicks EF, Varelas PN, Gronseth GS, Greer DM. Evidence-based guideline update: determining brain death in adults report of the quality standards subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2010;74(23):1911–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Weiss N, Mutlu G, Essardy F, Nacabal C, Sauves C, Bally C, et al. The French version of the FOUR score: a new coma score. Rev Neurol. 2009;165(10):796–802.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Marcati E, Ricci S, Casalena A, Toni D, Carolei A, Sacco S. Validation of the Italian version of a new coma scale: the FOUR score. Intern Emerg Med. 2012;7(2):145–52.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Idrovo L, Fuentes B, Medina J, Gabaldón L, Ruiz-Ares G, Abenza MJ, et al. Validation of the FOUR Score (Spanish Version) in acute stroke: an interobserver variability study. Eur Neurol. 2010;63(6):364–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
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. Neurocrit Care. 2009;10(1):50–4.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Cohen J. Interrater reliability and predictive validity of the FOUR score coma scale in a pediatric population. J Neurosci Nurs. 2009;41(5):261–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Bruno M-A, Ledoux D, Lambermont B, Damas F, Schnakers C, Vanhaudenhuyse A, et al. Comparison of the full outline of unresponsiveness and glasgow liege scale/glasgow coma scale in an intensive care unit population. Neurocrit Care. 2011;15(3):447–53.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Akavipat P, Sookplung P, Kaewsingha P, Maunsaiyat P. Prediction of discharge outcome with the full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score in neurosurgical patients. Acta MedOkayama. 2011;65:205–10.
17.
Fischer M, Rüegg S, Czaplinski A, Strohmeier M, Lehmann A, Tschan F, et al. Research inter-rater reliability of the full outline of unresponsiveness score and the glasgow coma scale in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study. 2010.
18.
Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. II. Prognosis. Scott Med J. 1957;2(5):200–15.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Van Swieten J, Koudstaal P, Visser M, Schouten H, Van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19(5):604–7.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Schnakers C, Giacino J, Kalmar K, Piret S, Lopez E, Boly M, et al. Does the FOUR score correctly diagnose the vegetative and minimally conscious states? Ann Neurol. 2006;60(6):744–5.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Reith FC, Brennan PM, Maas AI, Teasdale GM. Lack of standardization in the use of the glasgow coma scale: results of international surveys. J Neurotrauma. 2016;33(1):89–94.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Predictive Validity and Inter-Rater Reliability of the Persian Version of Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Among Unconscious Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in an Intensive Care Unit
Authors
Somayeh Momenyan
Sey.Mojtaba Mousavi
Tahmineh Dadkhahtehrani
Fatemeh Sarvi
Reza Heidarifar
Faezeh Kabiri
Erfan Mohebi
Mohammad Koohbor
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Neurocritical Care / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1541-6933
Electronic ISSN: 1556-0961
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-016-0324-0

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Neurocritical Care 2/2017 Go to the issue

Current Concepts

Shunt Devices for Neurointensivists: Complications and Management

Review Article

Management of Acute Hypertensive Response in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients After ATACH-2 Trial

Review Article

Drug Interactions in Neurocritical Care

Neuroimage

Coxsackie B3/B4-Related Acute Flaccid Myelitis

Original Article

Early-Onset Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Consequences in Cerebral Oxygenation and Outcome

Original Article

Procalcitonin is a Poor Predictor of Non-Infectious Fever in the Neurocritical Care Unit