Araştırma Makalesi

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

Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2 25 Haziran 2020
PDF İndir
EN

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

  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.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yayımlanma Tarihi

25 Haziran 2020

Gönderilme Tarihi

29 Kasım 2019

Kabul Tarihi

2 Mayıs 2020

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2020 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

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. Journal of Contemporary Medicine. 2020;10(2):176-180. doi:10.16899/jcm.652716
Chicago
Doğu, Özlem, Banu Terzi, ve 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 (01 Haziran 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, ve Ö. Kutlu, “Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit”, Journal of Contemporary Medicine, c. 10, sy 2, ss. 176–180, Haz. 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 (01 Haziran 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. Journal of Contemporary Medicine. 2020;10:176–180.
MLA
Doğu, Özlem, vd. “Comparison of two different tools of consciousness assessment in the intensive care unit”. Journal of Contemporary Medicine, c. 10, sy 2, Haziran 2020, ss. 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. Journal of Contemporary Medicine. 01 Haziran 2020;10(2):176-80. doi:10.16899/jcm.652716

Cited By