AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe mortality rateamong patients with low scores on both FOUR and GCS was higher than the hospital mortality rate.CONCLUSION: Considering that FOUR score allows a more detailed neurological evaluation than GCS, and our findings suggestthat FOUR score is more useful for patients who are unconscious or dependent on mechanical ventilation.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
AIM: To assess reliability by comparing the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) scores and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) valuesassigned by specialists from two different fields to patients in the Anesthesiology and Reanimation and Neurosurgery intensive careunits.MATERIAL and METHODS: This study was conducted between March 2017 and June 2017 at Selcuk University Faculty ofMedicine, Departments of Anesthesiology and Reanimation and Neurosurgery. Seventy-nine patients aged 18-65 years who weretreated for at least 24 hours in the intensive care unit were independently assessed by two raters, an anesthesiologist and aneurosurgeon,using FOUR and GCS. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was applied for continuous variables, and SPSS 20.0version software was used for data analyses.RESULTS: There were no significant differences between FOUR scores and GCS values given by the two raters. The mortality rateamong patients with low scores on both FOUR and GCS was higher than the hospital mortality rate.CONCLUSION: Considering that FOUR score allows a more detailed neurological evaluation than GCS, and our findings suggestthat FOUR score is more useful for patients who are unconscious or dependent on mechanical ventilation.