Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to intensive care units and emergency departments: A quantitative systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score used by nurses and physicians to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments (EDs). REVIEW METHOD USED: This systematic review was guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and followed the reporting standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted using the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. REVIEW METHODS: All authors performed the study selection process, data collection, and assessment of quality. The following psychometric properties were addressed: inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity. RESULTS: Six articles were included. The GCS and the FOUR scores demonstrated excellent reliability and very strong validity when used by nurses and physicians to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to the ICU and ED. The FOUR score demonstrated slightly higher overall reliability and validity than the GCS. CONCLUSION: This systematic review indicates that the FOUR score is especially suitable for assessing the level of consciousness in patients admitted to the ICU and ED. The FOUR score demonstrated higher reliability and validity than the GCS, making it a promising alternative assessment scale, despite the GCS's longstanding use in clinical practice.

Unveiling the Complexity of Traumatic Brain Injury: Insights from Clinical Scoring Systems.

Krishnakumar M. Unveiling the Complexity of Traumatic Brain Injury: Insights from Clinical Scoring Systems. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(3):193-195.

Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale Full Outline of UnResponsiveness and Glasgow Coma Scale: Pupils Score for Predicting Outcome in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

Background: Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score is the most widely used clinical score for the initial assessment of neurologically injured patients and is also frequently used for prognostication. Other scores such as the Full Outline of UnResponsivness (FOUR) score and the Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils (GCS-P) score have been more recently developed and are gaining popularity. This prospective cohort study was conducted to compare various scores in terms of their ability to predict outcomes at 3 months in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Materials and methods: The study was carried out between October 2020 and March 2022. Patients who presented to the hospital with TBI were assessed for inclusion. Initial coma scores were assessed in the emergency department and again after 48 hours of admission. Outcome was assessed using the extended Glasgow outcome score (GOSE) at 3 months after injury. The receiver operating curve (ROC) was plotted to correlate coma scores with the outcome, and the area under the curve (AUC) was compared. Results: A total of 355 patients with TBI were assessed for eligibility, of which 204 patients were included in the study. The AUC values to predict poor outcomes for initial GCS, FOUR, and GCS-P scores were 0.75 each. The AUC values for 48-hour coma scores were 0.88, 0.87, and 0.88, respectively. Conclusion: The GCS, FOUR, and GCS-P scores were found to be comparable in predicting the functional outcome at 3 months as assessed by GOSE. However, coma scores assessed at 48 hours were better predictors of poor outcomes at 3 months than coma scores recorded initially at the time of hospital admission. How to cite this article: Chawnchhim AL, Mahajan C, Kapoor I, Sinha TP, Prabhakar H, Chaturvedi A. Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale Full Outline of UnResponsiveness and Glasgow Coma Scale: Pupils Score for Predicting Outcome in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(3):256-264.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Greek Version of the "Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score": A Prospective Observational Clinimetric Study in Neurosurgical Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score is a clinical instrument for the assessment of consciousness which is gradually gaining ground in clinical practice, as it incorporates more complete neurological information than the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). The main objectives of the current study were the following: (1) translate and cross-culturally adapt the FOUR score into Greek; (2) evaluate its clinimetric properties, including interrater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity; and (3) evaluate the reliability of assessments among health care professionals with different levels of experience and training. METHODS: The FOUR score was initially translated into Greek. Next, patients with neurosurgical pathologies in need of consciousness monitoring were independently assessed with the GCS and FOUR score within one hour by four raters who had different levels of experience and training (two board-certified neurosurgeons, a neurosurgery resident, and a registered nurse). Interrater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity were evaluated for the scales using weighted Cohen's κ (κw) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Cronbach's α and Spearman's ρ values, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 408 assessments were performed for 99 patients. The interrater reliability was excellent for both the FOUR score (ICC = 0.941) and GCS (ICC = 0.936). The values of κw exceeded 0.90 for all pairs, suggesting that the FOUR score can be reliably applied by raters with varying experience. Among the scales' components, FOUR score's brainstem and respiratory items showed the lowest, yet high enough (κw > 0.60), level of agreement. The interrater reliability remained excellent (κw > 0.85, ICC > 0.90) for all diagnosis and age groups, with a trend toward higher FOUR score values in the most severe cases (ICC = 0.813 vs. 0.723). Both the FOUR score and GCS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.70 for all occasions). The FOUR score correlated strongly with GCS (Spearman's ρ > 0.90 for all raters), suggesting high construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Greek version of the FOUR score is a valid and reliable tool for the clinical assessment of patients with disorders of consciousness. It can be applied successfully by nurses, residents, and specialized physicians. Therefore, its use by medical practitioners with different levels of experience and training is strongly encouraged.

A Comparison of Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score with Glasgow Coma Scale Score in Predicting Outcomes among Patients with Altered Mental Status Admitted to the Critical Care Unit.

Aim: Comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score with the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score to find the better scoring system for predicting outcomes among altered sensorium patients in the critical care unit. Materials and methods: This is a prospective observational study. It included 100 patients of altered sensorium, whose GCS and FOUR scores were calculated at admission and followed up till death or discharge to note the outcome. Individual demographics and diagnosis were recorded, and the results were analyzed statistically. Results: The correlation between the two scores was excellent, with the Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.88. Discrimination ability of the two scoring systems, as assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, was 0.778 for GCS score and 0.883 for FOUR score (p <0.001). When area under the curve (AUC) was calculated exclusively in stroke cases, it was 0.836 for GCS score and 0.944 for FOUR score. Among nonstroke cases, the AUC was 0.756 and 0.859, respectively. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping among the corresponding scores. Conclusion: The above study concludes that there is a good correlation between GCS and FOUR scores in predicting outcomes. Superiority of FOUR score could not be established statistically in view of overlapping confidence limits. However, it performed at par with GCS in prognosticating mortality among patients with altered sensorium. Clinical significance: In critically ill patients with altered sensorium, explaining the prognosis to the attendants is a challenge for the physician. The commonly used GCS score has several shortcomings, especially in intubated patients. Use of the FOUR score can overcome these shortcomings and help in prognostication of these patients. In view of its good correlation with GCS score and equal efficacy in predicting outcomes in varied etiologies, it can be used as a good alternative to the GCS score. How to cite this article: Javvaji PK, Nagatham P, Venkata RR, Puttam H, John SK, Karavalla H, et al. A Comparison of Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score with Glasgow Coma Scale Score in Predicting Outcomes among Patients with Altered Mental Status Admitted to the Critical Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(2):210-215.

Prediction of Mortality in the Medical Intensive Care Unit with Serial Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score in Elderly Patients.

BACKGROUND: Advanced age is one of the key risk factors for mortality and morbidity in intensive care units. The full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score has been developed and introduced to address the limitations of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). The current study aimed to evaluate the ability of the FOUR score in predicting the outcomes (survivors, nonsurvivors). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational study of 168 consecutive elderly patients admitted to medical intensive care during the 14 months carried out prospectively. FOUR score in the 24, 48, and 72 hours of admission, and demographic characteristics of all elderly patients were calculated, then recorded. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, logistic regression, and Hosmer-Lemeshow test were used (95% confidence interval) for statistical analysis. RESULTS: FOUR scores in 24, 48, and 72 hours between survivors and nonsurvivors (p <0.0001, p <0.0001, and p <0.0001, respectively) were statistically different. The discrimination power of FOUR score 24 hours of admission was excellent [area under ROC (AUC): 85.7% [standard error (SE)]: 2.8%]; it was acceptable for 48 and 72 hours of admission [AUC: 76.3% (SE: 3.6%), AUC: 75/0% (SE: 3.8%), respectively]. The FOUR score of 24 and 48 hours (x2 = 10.06, p = 0.261, x2 = 6.82, p = 0.448, respectively) showed acceptable calibration. CONCLUSIONS: The FOUR score is a suitable scoring system for prognostication of outcomes in critically ill elderly patients. The FOUR score 24 hours of admission was superior in terms of discrimination power than 48 and 72 hours, but better calibration power belonged to FOUR score 48 hours. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Ramazani J, Hosseini M. Prediction of Mortality in the Medical Intensive Care Unit with Serial Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score in Elderly Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(1):94-99.

Prognostic Utility of Daily Changes in Glasgow Coma Scale and the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score Measurement in Patients with Metabolic Encephalopathy, Central Nervous System Infections and Stroke in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic encephalopathy (ME), central nervous system (CNS) infections, and stroke are common causes of reduced level of consciousness in Uganda. However, the prognostic utility of changes in the daily measurements of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score in these specific disorders is not known. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of data from patients who presented with reduced level of consciousness due to CNS infections, stroke, or ME to a tertiary hospital in Uganda. Patients had FOUR/GCS scores at admission and at 24 and 48 h. We calculated a change in FOUR score (ΔFOUR) and change in GCS score (ΔGCS) at 24 and 48 h and used logistic regression models to determine whether these changes were predictive of 30-day mortality. In addition, we determined the prognostic utility of adding the admission score to the 24-h ΔFOUR and 24-h ΔGCS on mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 230 patients (86 with ME, 79 with CNS infections, and 65 with stroke). The mean (SD) age was 50.8 (21.3) years, 27% (61 of 230) had HIV infection, and 62% (134 of 230) were peasant farmers. ΔFOUR at 24 h was predictive of mortality among those with ME (odds ratio [OR] 0.64 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.48-0.84]; p = 0.001) and those with CNS infections (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.48-0.87]; p = 0.004) but not in those with stroke (OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.73-1.38]; p = 0.998). However, ΔGCS at 24 h was only predictive of mortality in the ME group (OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.56-0.86]; p = 0.001) and not in the CNS or stroke group. This 24-h ΔGCS and ΔFOUR pattern was similar at 48 h in all subgroups. The addition of an admission score to either 24-h ΔFOUR or 24-h ΔGCS significantly improved the predictive ability of the scores in those with stroke and CNS infection but not in those with ME. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-four-hour and 48-h ΔFOUR and ΔGCS are predictive of mortality in Ugandan patients with CNS infections and ME but not in those with stroke. For individuals with stroke, the admission score plays a more significant predictive role that the change in scores.

Predicting Outcome in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH) Utilizing the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) Score.

BACKGROUND: Existing scoring systems for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients fail to accurately predict patient outcome. Our goal was to prospectively study the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score as applied to newly admitted aneurysmal SAH patients. METHODS: All adult patients presenting to Health Sciences Center in Winnipeg from January 2013 to July 2015 (2.5 year period) with aneurysmal SAH were prospectively enrolled in this study. All patients were followed up to 6 months. FOUR score was calculated upon admission, with repeat calculation at 7 and 14 days. The primary outcomes were: mortality, as well as dichotomized 1- and 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) values. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were included, with a mean age of 54.2 years (range 26-85 years). The mean FOUR score upon admission pre- and post-external ventricular drain (EVD) was 10.3 (range 0-16) and 11.1 (range 3-16), respectively. There was a statistically significant association between pre-EVD FOUR score (total, eye, respiratory and motor sub-scores) with mortality, 1-month GOS, and 6-month GOS/mRS (p < 0.05 in all). The day 7 total, eye, respiratory, and motor FOUR scores were associated with mortality, 1-month GOS/mRS, and 6-month GOS/mRS (p < 0.05 in all). The day 14 total, eye, respiratory, and motor FOUR scores were associated with 6-month GOS (p < 0.05 in all). The day 7 cumulative FOUR score was associated with the development of clinical vasospasm (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The FOUR score at admission and day 7 post-SAH is associated with mortality, 1-month GOS/mRS, and 6-month GOS/mRS. The FOUR score at day 14 post-SAH is associated with 6-month GOS. The brainstem sub-score was not associated with 1- or 6-month primary outcomes.

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.

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.

A comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in predictive modelling in traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of multivariate predictive models incorporating either the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score or Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in order to test whether substituting GCS with the FOUR score in predictive models for outcome in patients after TBI is beneficial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 162 TBI patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was conducted to compare the prediction of (1) in-ICU mortality and (2) unfavourable outcome at 3 months post-injury using as predictors either the FOUR score or GCS along with other factors that may affect patient outcome. The areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) were used to compare the discriminant ability and predictive power of the models. The internal validation was performed with bootstrap technique and expressed as accuracy rate (AcR). RESULTS: The FOUR score, age, the CT Rotterdam score, systolic ABP and being placed on ventilator within day one (model 1: AUC: 0.906 ± 0.024; AcR: 80.3 ± 4.8%) performed equally well in predicting in-ICU mortality as the combination of GCS with the same set of predictors plus pupil reactivity (model 2: AUC: 0.913 ± 0.022; AcR: 81.1 ± 4.8%). The CT Rotterdam score, age and either the FOUR score (model 3) or GCS (model 4) equally well predicted unfavourable outcome at 3 months post-injury (AUC: 0.852 ± 0.037 vs. 0.866 ± 0.034; AcR: 72.3 ± 6.6% vs. 71.9%±6.6%, respectively). Adding the FOUR score or GCS at discharge from ICU to predictive models for unfavourable outcome increased significantly their performances (AUC: 0.895 ± 0.029, p = 0.05; AcR: 76.1 ± 6.5%; p < 0.004 when compared with model 3; and AUC: 0.918 ± 0.025, p < 0.05; AcR: 79.6 ± 7.2%, p < 0.009 when compared with model 4), but there was no benefit from substituting GCS with the FOUR score. CONCLUSION: Results showed that FOUR score and GCS perform equally well in multivariate predictive modelling in TBI.

Comparison of outcome predictions by the Glasgow coma scale and the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score in the neurological and neurosurgical patients in the Intensive Care Unit.

Assessment of level of consciousness is very important in predicting patient's outcome from neurological illness. Glasgow coma scale (GCS) is the most commonly used scale, and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score is also recently validated as an alternative to GCS in the evaluation of the level of consciousness. We carried out a prospective study in 97 patients aged above 16 years. We measured GCS and FOUR score within 24 h of Intensive Care Unit admission. The mean GCS and the FOUR scores were lower among nonsurvivors than among the survivors and were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Discrimination for GCS and FOUR score was fair with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 and 0.82, respectively. The cutoff point with best Youden index for GCS and FOUR score was 6.5 each. Below the cutoff point, mortality was higher in both models (P < 0.001). The Hosmer-Lemeshow Chi-square coefficient test showed better calibration with FOUR score than GCS. A positive correlation was seen between the models with Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.91 (P < 0.001).

Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score versus Glasgow Coma Scale in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Altered Mental Status.

Introduction: Full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score has advantages over Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS); as it can be used in intubated patients and provides greater neurological details. It has been studied mainly in the trauma and neuroscience setting. Our primary objective was to compare the FOUR versus GCS score as predictors of mortality at 30 days and poor functional outcome at 3 months among nontrauma patients in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted on adult patients presenting with altered mental status (duration <7 days) in the ED (March 2019-November 2020). Data collection included demographic and clinical features, the GCS and FOUR scores, the feasibility of acquiring and interpreting FOUR on a Likert scale, duration of hospital stay, 30-day mortality, and functional outcome at 3 months on the modified Rankin Scale. Trained emergency medicine residents managing the patient collected the data. The area under receiver's operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was used to compare the accuracy of the GCS and FOUR scores in predicting outcomes. The FOUR score equivalent of GCS cutoffs for categorizing neurological impairment (mild, moderate, and severe) was also investigated. Results: Two hundred and ninety-one patients were included, with a mean age of 50.3 years and 67.4% males. Most patients (40.2%) had altered mental status for 1-3 days and hepatic encephalopathy was the most common ED diagnosis. The mortality at 30 days was 66.7% (194 of 291), and 88% (256 of 291) of patients had poor functional outcomes at 3 months. The AUROCs for predicting 30-day mortality were similar for both the scores (GCS: 0.70, FOUR: 0.71, and the P value for difference: 0.9). Similarly, the AUROCs for predicting 3-month poor functional outcome were 0.683 and 0.669 using GCS and FOUR, respectively, with a nonsignificant difference (P = 0.82). The FOUR score strata of 14-16, 11-13, and 0-10 were found to be equivalent to the GCS scores of 13-15 (mild), 9-12 (moderate), and 3-8 (severe). The feasibility of acquiring and interpreting GCS and FOUR scores on the Likert scale was found to be "easy." Conclusion: The FOUR score is similar to GCS in predicting mortality at 30 days and poor neurological outcomes at 3 months among nontrauma patients of ED. Moreover, it was found that the FOUR score is "easy" to assess and interpret by the emergency residents.

The Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score evaluation to predict patient outcomes with neurological illnesses in intensive care units in West Bank: a prospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Determining the clinical neurological state of the patient is essential for making decisions and forecasting results. The Glasgow Coma Scale and the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Scale are commonly used tools for measuring behavioral consciousness. This study aims to compare scales among patients with neurological disorders in intensive care units (ICUs) in the West Bank. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional design was employed. All patients admitted to ICUs who met inclusion criteria were involved in this study. Data were collected from from An-Najah National University, Al-Watani, and Rafedia Hospital. Both tools were used to collect data. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients were assessed, 69.0% of the patients were male, and the average length of stay was 6.4 days. The mean score on the Glasgow Coma scale was 11.2 on admission 11.6 after 48 hours, and 12.2 on discharge. The mean FOUR Scale score was 12.2 on admission, 12.4 after 48 hours, and 12.5 at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that both the Glasgow Coma Scale and the FOUR scale are effective in predicting outcomes for neurologically deteriorated critically ill patients. However, the FOUR scale proved to be more reliable when assessing outcomes in ICU patients.

Comparison of the Prognostic Accuracy of Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) Score among Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in a Tertiary Care Center.

Objectives The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is widely used and considered the gold standard in assessing the consciousness of patients with traumatic brain injury. However, some significant limitations, like the considerable variations in interobserver reliability and predictive validity, were the reason for developing the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score. The current study aims to compare the prognostic accuracy of the FOUR score with the GCS score for in-hospital mortality and morbidity among patients with traumatic brain injury. Materials and Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted, where 237 participants were selected by consecutive sampling from a tertiary care center. These patients were assessed with the help of GCS and FOUR scores within 6 hours of admission, and other clinical parameters were also noted. The level of consciousness was checked every day with the help of GCS and FOUR scores until their last hospitalization day. Glasgow Outcome Scale was used to assess their outcome on the last day of hospitalization. The GCS and FOUR scores were compared, and data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. The chi-square test, independent Student's t -test, and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used for inferential analysis. Results The area under the curve (AUC) for the GCS score at the 6th hour for predicting mortality was 0.865 with a cutoff value of 5.5, and it yields a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 64%. The AUC for FOUR scores at the 6th hour for predicting the mortality was 0.893, with a cutoff value of 5.5, and it yields a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 73%. Conclusion The current study shows that, as per the AUC of GCS and FOUR scores, their sensitivity was equal, but specificity was higher in the FOUR score. So, the FOUR score has higher accuracy than the GCS score in the prediction of mortality among traumatic brain injury patients.

Assessment of GCS and FOUR Score as Prognostic Indicators for Hospital Stay and Morbidity in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients: An Observational Study.

Aim: The objective of the present research was to evaluate variations in hospital stay as well as morbidity based on the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Full Outline of Un-Responsive (FOUR) scores for patients who had traumatic brain injury (TBI). Materials and Methods: A total of 107 patients with TBI patients who attended the emergency department of MES Medical College, Perinthalmanna, were enrolled into the study. FOUR and GCS scoring systems were used to assess the patients within 24 hours of the presentation to the emergency department. Both FOUR and GCS scoring systems were assessed at the same time. The outcome was measured in terms of length of hospital stay and morbidity, which was assessed using modified Rankin score. Chi-square test was used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. A P value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: We found a strong positive correlation between GCS and FOUR score with a Spearman coefficient of 0.9. Comparison of AUC between GCS score and FOUR score showed a statistically significant difference (P = 0.0044), predicting that FOUR score was a better predictor of hospital stay (>15 days) than GCS score. Comparison of AUC between GCS score and FOUR score showed a significant statistical difference (P = 0.0002), showing that FOUR score was a better predictor of morbidity than GCS. Conclusion: FOUR score was a better predictor of hospital stay and morbidity as compared to GCS score.

Comparison of the prognostic value of coma scales among health-care professionals: a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictive value of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), investigating whether they are comparable in predicting short- and long-term functional outcome and if their predictive ability remains unaffected by the raters' background and experience. METHODS: Patients treated in the Neurosurgery Department and the Intensive Care Unit in need for consciousness monitoring were assessed between October 1st, 2018, and December 31st, 2020, by four raters (two consultants, a resident and a nurse) using the two scales on admission and at discharge. Outcome was recorded at discharge and at 6 months. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were calculated for the prediction of mortality and poor outcome, and the identification of coma. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included. AUCs values were > 0.860 for all outcomes and raters. No significant differences were noted between the two scales. Raters' experience did not affect the scales' predictive value. Both scales showed excellent accuracy in identifying comatose patients (AUCs > 0.950). The difference between admission and discharge values was not a reliable predictor. CONCLUSION: Both the FOUR Score and GCS are reliable predictors of short- and long-term outcome, with no clear superiority among them. The application of the FOUR Score by inexperienced raters is equally reliable, without influencing negatively the predictive value.

The current significance of the FOUR score: A systematic review and critical analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The Full Outline of Un-Responsiveness Score (FOURs) is a scale for clinical assessment of consciousness that was introduced to overcome disadvantages of the widely accepted Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). OBJECTIVE: To carry out a systematic review and critical analysis of the available literature on the clinical application of FOURs and perform a comparison to GCS, in terms of reliability and predictive value. METHODS: Initial search retrieved a total of 147 papers. After applying strict inclusion criteria and further article selection to overcome data heterogeneity, a statistical comparison of inter-rater reliability, in-hospital mortality and long-term outcome prediction between the two scales in the adult and pediatric population was done. RESULTS: Even though FOURs is more complicated than GCS, its application remains quite simple. Its reliability, validity and predictive value have been supported by an increasing number of studies, especially in critical care. A statistically significant difference (p = .034) in predicting in-hospital mortality in adults, in favor of FOURs when compared to GCS, was found. However, whether it poses a clinically significant advantage in detecting patients' deterioration and outcome prediction, compared to other scaling systems, remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are needed to discern the FOURs' clinical usefulness, especially in patients in non-critical condition, with milder disorders of consciousness.

Comparison of Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score and the conventional scores in predicting outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score is a more comprehensive score used to assess eye response, motor response, brainstem reflexes, and respiration that was introduced to overcome the drawbacks of Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score. Our aim was to assess which score best predicts mortality and poor outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) patients. METHODS: This cohort study, prospectively evaluated the use of FOUR score to assess the mortality and outcome in aSAH patients during the period from November 2015 to November 2016. For each patient of aSAH, GCS, FOUR score, Hunt and Hess (HH) score and World Federation of Neurological Surgeons (WFNS) score were determined at the time of admission to neurosurgical intensive care unit. All patients were followed till 28 days post-SAH and their outcome were assessed by Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). We calculated the sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for each of these scores. We generated the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), quantified the accuracy by the area under curve (AUC), and also calculated their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: A total of 75 aSAH patients were enrolled for the study. The mortality was 24/75 (32%) with 23 in-hospital deaths. FOUR score was highly specific (86.27%) and sensitive (75%) for the prediction of mortality. However, for predicting 28-day outcome, WFNS and HH grade were most specific (92.5%), whereas FOUR and HH score was moderately specific (68.57%). CONCLUSION: FOUR score is among the most specific and moderately sensitive tool for prediction of mortality. However, WFNS and HH grade are more specific in predicting the 28-day outcome.

Comparison of full outline of unresponsiveness score and Glasgow Coma Scale in Medical Intensive Care Unit.

Context: 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. 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). Setting and Design: This was an observational and prospective study of 300 consecutive patients admitted to the MICU during a 14 months' period. Materials and Methods: FOUR score, GCS score, and demographic characteristics of all patients were recorded in the first admission 24 h. Statistical Analysis Used: A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and Logistic regression were used in the statistical analysis (95% confidence interval). Results: Data analysis showed a significant statistical difference in FOUR score and GCS score between survivors and nonsurvivors (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001; respectively). The discrimination power was good for both FOUR score and GCS (area under ROC curve: 87.3% (standard error [SE]: 2.1%), 82.6% [SE: 2.3%]; respectively). The acceptable calibration was seen just for FOUR score (χ2 = 8.059, P = 0.428). Conclusions: Both FOUR score and GCS are valuable scales for predicting outcomes in patients are admitted to the MICU; however, the FOUR score showed better discrimination and calibration than GCS, so it is superior to GCS in predicting outcomes in this patients population.

The Relationship of the FOUR Score to Patient Outcome: A Systematic Review.

The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score assessment of consciousness replaces the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) verbal component with assessment of brainstem reflexes. A comprehensive overview studying the relationship between a patient's FOUR score and outcome is lacking. We aim to systematically review published literature reporting the relationship of FOUR score to outcome in adult patients with impaired consciousness. We systematically searched for records of relevant studies: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and OpenGrey. Prospective, observational studies of patients with impaired consciousness were included where consciousness was assessed using FOUR score, and where the outcome in mortality or validated functional outcome scores was reported. Consensus-based screening and quality appraisal were performed. Outcome prognostication was synthesized narratively. Forty records (37 studies) were identified, with overall low (n = 2), moderate (n = 25), or high (n = 13) risk of bias. There was significant heterogeneity in patient characteristics. FOUR score showed good to excellent prognostication of in-hospital mortality in most studies (area under curve [AUC], >0.80). It was good at predicting poor functional outcome (AUC, 0.80-0.90). There was some evidence that motor and eye components (also GCS components) had better prognostic ability than brainstem components. Overall, FOUR score relates closely to in-hospital mortality and poor functional outcome. More studies with standardized design are needed to better characterize it in different patient groups, confirm the differences between its four components, and compare it with the performance of GCS and its recently described derivative, the GCS-Pupils, which includes pupil response as a fourth component.