Research Article

Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit

Volume: 10 Number: 2 June 25, 2020
EN

Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit

Abstract

Aim: To compare two different consciousness assessment tools used in intensive care units. Materials and Methods: The prospective observational study was conducted with a total of 29 patients who were followed up in intensive care units. GCS and FOUR scores and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of the patients who were monitored by the same observer for 10 days in the intensive care units were measured and recorded. Mean±standard deviation was used for the values regarding total scale score means. Pearson’s correlation analysis was used for comparing total score means. Results: GCS and FOUR scores and the mean total mRS scored of the patients on the first day were 6.95±2.25 (range, 3-11), 8.65±2.45 (range, 4-13), and 4.93±0.25 (range, 4-5) respectively. The mean total scale scores on the 10th day were 6.62±3.27 (range, 3-12), 8.13±3.44 (range, 4-13), and 4.89±0.30 (range, 4-5). A statistically significant high-degree relationship was found between the mean total scores of the patients' GCS and FOUR scores (p<0.001). Conclusion: FOUR can be confidently used instead of GCS for the assessment of consciousness. Comparisons of GCS and FOUR score should be conducted with different patient groups and larger samples. Differences between observers should also be evaluated when comparing the scoring systems.

Keywords

References

  1. 1. Iyer VN, Mandrekar JN, Danielson RD, Zubkov AY, Elmer JL, Wijdicks EFM. Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2009;84(8):694–701.
  2. 2. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 1974;2(7872):81–84.
  3. 3. Jennett B. Development of Glasgow Coma and outcome scales. Nepal J Neuroscience 2005;2(1):24-8.
  4. 4. Sepit D. Level of consciousness: assessment and Glasgow Coma Scale as an assessment tool. HEAD 2005;2(1):12-16.
  5. 5. Akdemir G. Trauma scoring and Glasgow Coma Scale. Turkiye Klinikleri J Neurosurg-Special Topics 2008;1(1):6-11.
  6. 6. Middleton PM. Practical use of the Glasgow Coma Scale; a comprehensive narrative review of GCS methodology. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2012;15(3):170-83.
  7. 7. Reith FC, Brennan PM, Maas AI, Teasdale GM. Lack of standardization in the use of the Glasgow Coma Scale: results of ınternational surveys. J Neurotrauma 2016;33(1):89-94.
  8. 8. Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV, Manno EM, McClelland RL. Validation of a new coma scale: The FOUR Score. Ann Neurol 2005;58:585-93.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

June 25, 2020

Submission Date

November 29, 2019

Acceptance Date

May 2, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 10 Number: 2

APA
Doğu, Ö., Terzi, B., & Kutlu, Ö. (2020). Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit. Journal of Contemporary Medicine, 10(2), 176-180. https://doi.org/10.16899/jcm.652716
AMA
1.Doğu Ö, Terzi B, Kutlu Ö. Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit. J Contemp Med. 2020;10(2):176-180. doi:10.16899/jcm.652716
Chicago
Doğu, Özlem, Banu Terzi, and Özcan Kutlu. 2020. “Comparison of Two Different Tools of Consciousness Assessment in the Intensive Care Unit”. Journal of Contemporary Medicine 10 (2): 176-80. https://doi.org/10.16899/jcm.652716.
EndNote
Doğu Ö, Terzi B, Kutlu Ö (June 1, 2020) Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit. Journal of Contemporary Medicine 10 2 176–180.
IEEE
[1]Ö. Doğu, B. Terzi, and Ö. Kutlu, “Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit”, J Contemp Med, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 176–180, June 2020, doi: 10.16899/jcm.652716.
ISNAD
Doğu, Özlem - Terzi, Banu - Kutlu, Özcan. “Comparison of Two Different Tools of Consciousness Assessment in the Intensive Care Unit”. Journal of Contemporary Medicine 10/2 (June 1, 2020): 176-180. https://doi.org/10.16899/jcm.652716.
JAMA
1.Doğu Ö, Terzi B, Kutlu Ö. Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit. J Contemp Med. 2020;10:176–180.
MLA
Doğu, Özlem, et al. “Comparison of Two Different Tools of Consciousness Assessment in the Intensive Care Unit”. Journal of Contemporary Medicine, vol. 10, no. 2, June 2020, pp. 176-80, doi:10.16899/jcm.652716.
Vancouver
1.Özlem Doğu, Banu Terzi, Özcan Kutlu. Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit. J Contemp Med. 2020 Jun. 1;10(2):176-80. doi:10.16899/jcm.652716

Cited By