![]() ![]() The mean FOUR score and GCS were significantly higher in survivors compared to nonsurvivors ( P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). In this study, two predictive models (FOUR score and GCS) have been evaluated in the medical ICU. #GLASGOW COMA SCALE SCORE SHEET FULL#The area under curve is 0.873 for full outline of unresponsiveness score and 0.826 for Glasgow Coma scale Although there was the difference between the age of survivors and nonsurvivors and nonsurvivors were older than survivors, but this relationship was not statistically significant ( P = 0.052).įigure 1: Receiver operator characteristic curves for full outline of unresponsiveness score and Glasgow Coma Scale. The length of ICU stay (LOS) was significantly longer for nonsurvivors in comparison to survivors ( P = 0.01). Based on the findings of this study, the overall predictive accuracy of FOUR score was better than GCS. To access the predictive accuracy of two models, the ROC curve was drawn. Based on the Hosmer–Lemeshow Chi-Square statistic, the calibration power of FOUR score was good (χ 2 = 8.06, P = 0.43) but it was weak for GCS (χ 2 = 17.01, P = 0.03). By cutoff score 6.5, FOUR score predicted MICU mortality with a sensitivity of 78%, a specificity of 78%, and accuracy of 78%, with an AUC of 0.873 ± 0.021 standard error (SE) (95% 0.833-0.913, P < 0.001). The best Youden index (sensitivity + specificity − 1) was used to determine the best cutoff score point for both predictive models. Table 2: Comparison of full outline of unresponsiveness score and Glasgow Coma Scale between survivors and nonsurvivorsīased on the area under ROC curve, the discrimination power of FOUR score and GCS was good (AUC = 0.873, AUC = 0.826, respectively). ![]() The performance of two models has compared in. The performance of predictive models can be assessed using a variety of different methods such as calculating discrimination and calibration power of models. Survivors and nonsurvivors exhibited profound differences in FOUR score and GCS the nonsurvivors showed significantly lower scores at the first 24 h of admission than survivors ( P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). Table 1: The characteristics of the study samplesįor the entire cohort of patients, FOUR score and GCS, age and length of MICU stay were significantly different between the survivors and nonsurvivors. ![]() The characteristics of the study population are shown in. The overall mortality rate for all subjects was 28% (84 patients). Ī total of 300 patients admitted to MICU were enrolled in this study. The agreement between individual probabilities and actual outcomes (calibration) was assessed using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test and P > 0.05 was considered as well-calibrated. Results: Data analysis showed a significant statistical difference in FOUR score and GCS score between survivors and nonsurvivors ( P 0.7 indicates a moderate prognostic model, and AUC value >0.8 (a bulbous curve) indicates a good prognostic model. Statistical Analysis Used: A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, Hosmer–Lemeshow test, and Logistic regression were used in the statistical analysis (95% confidence interval). Materials and Methods: FOUR score, GCS score, and demographic characteristics of all patients were recorded in the first admission 24 h. Setting and Design: This was an observational and prospective study of 300 consecutive patients admitted to the MICU during a 14 months' period. Aim: The aim of the current study was to evaluate FOUR score and GCS ability in predicting the outcomes (Survivors, nonsurvivors) in Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). ![]() Comparison of full outline of unresponsiveness score and Glasgow Coma Scale in Medical Intensive Care Unitġ School of Nursing and Midwifery, Bojnourd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bojnurd, Iran 2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, IranĬlick here for correspondence address andĬontext: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most commonly used scale, and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score is new validated coma scale as an alternative to GCS in the evaluation of the level of consciousness. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |