Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score and Glasgow Coma Scale in medical patients with altered sensorium: interrater reliability and relation to outcome

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.

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 (κ_w) 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 κ_w 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 (κ_w > 0.60), level of agreement. The interrater reliability remained excellent (κ_w > 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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12028-021-01342-w.

Comparison of the Turkish versions of the Glasgow coma scale and four score used by intensive care nurses for neurological evaluation

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the use of the Turkish versions of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) Score by intensive care nurses in neurological evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted between July 2018 and March 2019 with 92 patients in the general intensive care unit (ICU) of the training and research hospital of a private university. Data were collected using nurse and patient information forms, the GCS and the FOUR Score. The patients were evaluated by 27 intensive care nurses. To evaluate interrater reliability of the GCS and FOUR Score, each patient in the study was evaluated using both scales by two nurses who were blinded to each other's responses.

RESULTS

Comparison of the patients' mean GCS and FOUR Score values from the two nurses revealed no significant difference in subscale or total scores (p > 0.05). Evaluation of interrater reliability demonstrated very good agreement (κ = 0.935, p < 0.001). There was also very good agreement between the results of the two nurse groups when the patients' total scores were categorised according to the cut-off points for the two instruments (κ = 0.927, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated excellent agreement in the Turkish GCS and FOUR Score values, indicating that both scales can be used in neurological evaluation. Both instruments are reliable and easily applied by ICU nurses.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The Turkish versions of the FOUR Score and GCS are both appropriate for use in intensive care units and are reliable tools for use by intensive care unit nurses.

Electroencephalographic Grading of Neuronal Dysfunction in Various Etiologies of Encephalopathy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work was to study the electroencephalographic (EEG) grading of neuronal dysfunction in encephalopathy of various etiologies and assess their association with clinical outcomes.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study was performed between June and November 2018 at the Neurology Department of King Fahd Hospital of University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and involved a review and analysis of EEG and medical records pertaining to 222 patients in whom encephalopathy was diagnosed.

RESULTS

In patients suffering from encephalopathy, advanced age (P = .01), low Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores (P = .00), and certain etiologies, namely hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) (P = .00), septic encephalopathy (P = .01), and other illnesses (P = .00), were significantly associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes, whereas traumatic brain injury (TBI) (P = .01) and GCS >7 (P = .00) were associated with favorable outcomes. Among different etiologies, EEG grade I (P = .02) and grade IV (P = .04) neuronal dysfunction was significantly associated with TBI while grade III (P = .05) and grade V (P = .02) neuronal dysfunction was significantly associated with HIE. Grade I (P = .03) neuronal dysfunction was mostly observed in septic encephalopathy cases, while patients suffering from other illnesses were also found to have grade I (P = .04) and grade IV (P = .05) neuronal dysfunction based on their EEG.

CONCLUSION

EEG is being conducted routinely to determine the course and severity of various forms of encephalopathy. However, the clinical implications of EEG grading for neuronal dysfunction are largely dependent on underlying etiology and other clinical parameters, such as age and GCS score. Further larger prospective cohort studies involving other important prognostic parameters and continuous EEG monitoring are thus needed.

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 Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) Score and Its Use in Outcome Prediction: A Scoping Systematic Review of the Adult Literature

BACKGROUND

The Full Outline of UnResponsivness (FOUR) score is a neurological assessment score. Its theoretical benefit over preexisting scores is its evaluation of brainstem reflexes and respiratory pattern which may allow better assessment of patients with severe neurologic impairment.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to perform a scoping systematic review on the available literature for FOUR score and outcome prediction in critically ill patients. The primary outcome of interest was patient global outcome, as assessed by any of: mortality, modified Rankin Score, Glasgow Outcome Score, or any other functional or neuropsychiatric outcome. Information on interobserver reliability was also extracted.

METHODS

MEDLINE and five other databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were: humans, adults, and children; prospective randomized controlled trial; prospective cohort, cohort/control, case series, prospective, and retrospective studies. Two reviewers independently screened the results. Full texts for citations passing this initial screen were obtained. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to each article to obtain final articles for review. Results on adult populations are presented here. Data are reported following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 1709 citations. Of those used, 49 were based on adult and 6 on pediatric populations. All but 8 retrospective adult studies were performed prospectively. Patient categories included traumatic brain injury, intraventricular hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, general/combined neurology and neurosurgery, post-cardiac arrest, medicine/general critical illness, and patients in the emergency department. A total of 9092 adult patients were studied. Fourteen studies demonstrated good interobserver reliability of the FOUR score. Nine studies demonstrated prognostic value of the FOUR score in predicting mortality and functional outcomes. Thirty-two studies demonstrated equivalency or superiority of the FOUR score compared to Glasgow Coma Score in prediction of mortality and functional outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The FOUR score has been shown to be a useful outcome predictor in many patients with depressed level of consciousness. It displays good inter-rater reliability among physicians and nurses.

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.

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.

Validation of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score coma scale in patients clinically suspected to have acute stroke in the emergency department

Introduction:

The Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score coma scale is a recently introduced coma scale. The objectives of this study were to assess the interrater reliability of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score coma scale when physicians and nurses in the emergency department apply the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score on patients clinically suspected to have acute stroke and to look for any association between Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score coma scale and in-hospital mortality.

Methods:

Prospective study of 105 patients clinically suspected to have acute stroke recruited in an emergency department in a 4-month period. The Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score coma scale and Glasgow Coma Scale of each patient were assessed by one doctor and one nurse independently. The interrater reliability between physicians and nurses using the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score and Glasgow Coma Scale score was assessed. The association between the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score coma scale and in-hospital mortality was analysed using logistic regression, controlled for age, sex and diagnosis.

Results:

Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score had a good interrater reliability when applied to patients suspected to have acute stroke (kappa = 0.742, 95% confidence interval = 0.626–0.858). This was comparable to Glasgow Coma Scale score with a kappa = 0.796 (95% confidence interval = 0.694–0.898). For every 1-point increase in Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score coma scale, a reduction in in-hospital mortality was observed with an odds ratio of 0.76 (95% confidence interval = 0.63–0.91, p = 0.003), controlled for age, sex and diagnosis.

Conclusion:

The Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score may be a tool that can be used by emergency department doctors and nurses in assessing clinical stroke patients.

Usefulness of full outline of unresponsiveness score to predict extubation failure in intubated critically-ill patients: A pilot study

Objective:

To assess the usefulness of the full outline of unresponsiveness (FOUR) score in predicting extubation failure in critically ill intubated patients admitted with disturbed level of conscious in comparison with the Glasgow coma scale (GCS).

Patients and Methods:

All intubated critically ill patients with a disturbed level of consciousness were assessed using both the FOUR score and the GCS. The FOUR score and the GCS were compared regarding their predictive value for successful extubation at 14 days after intubation as a primary outcome measure. The 28-day mortality and the neurological outcome at 3 months were used as secondary outcome measures.

Results:

Eighty-six patients were included in the study. Median age was 63 (50–77) years. Sex–ratio (M/F) was 1.46. On admission, median GCS was 7 (3–10) while median FOUR score was 8.5 (2.3–11). A GCS ≤ 7 predicted the extubation failure at 14 days after intubation with a sensitivity of 88.5% and specificity of 68.3%, whereas a FOUR score <10 predicted the same outcome with a sensitivity of 80.8% and a specificity of 81.7%. The areas under the curves was significantly higher with the FOUR score than with GCS (respectively 0.867 confidence interval [CI]: 95% [0790–0.944] and 0.832 CI: 95% [0.741–0.923]; P = 0.014). When calculated before extubation, FOUR score <12 predicted extubation failure with a sensitivity of 92.3% and a specificity of 85%, whereas a GCS <12 predicted the same outcome with a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 61.7%. Both scores had similar accuracy for predicting 28-day mortality and neurological outcome at 3 months.

Conclusion:

The FOUR score is superior to the GCS for the prediction of successful extubation of intubated critically ill patients.

Clinical, Electroencephalographic, and Neuroradiological Outcome Predictors in Acute Nonhypoxic Encephalopathy: A Nine-Year Cohort Study

Marked impairment of consciousness, brain lesion on neuroimaging, and nonreactive electroencephalographic (EEG) background activity are established outcome predictors in patients with hypoxic encephalopathy. In this observational cohort study, we aimed to assess the predictive value of clinical, neuroimaging and EEG characteristics for outcome in different types of acute nonhypoxic encephalopathic patients. All adult intensive care unit patients from a tertiary academic medical care center with clinical and EEG evidence of acute nonhypoxic encephalopathy were included from 2004 to 2012. Clinical data, neuroimaging studies, EEG characteristics, and outcome were assessed. In-hospital death was the main outcome. Median age of 262 patients was 65 years (range 18-98 years). Mortality was 12.6%. In Poisson regression analyses, older age (P=.02), intracranial hemorrhage (P=.008), coma (P=.012), and nonreactive EEG background activity (P<.0001) were independently associated with death with nonreactive EEG being the strongest predictor (relative risk 3.74; 95% confidence interval 2.02-6.91). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant effect modification for the predictive value of nonreactive EEG by the presence or absence of coma and different types of acute brain lesions. In conclusion, this study identifies and quantifies the independent predictive value of older age, intracranial hemorrhage, coma, and nonreactive EEG for death, in patients with different types of acute nonhypoxic encephalopathy. These results add further credence to the limited body of evidence that EEG provides important prognostic information in different types of acute encephalopathy not related to hypoxic brain injury. Further studies are warranted to analyze the robustness of this predictor in larger subpopulations with specific etiologies of acute nonhypoxic encephalopathies.

Validation of the Chinese version of the FOUR score in the assessment of neurosurgical patients with different level of consciousness

Background

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is currently the most widely used scoring system for comatose patients. A decade ago, the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score was devised to better capture four functional aspects of consciousness (eye, motor responses, brainstem reflexes, and respiration). This study aimed to validate the Chinese version of the FOUR score in patients with different levels of consciousness.

Methods

The study had two phases: (1) translation of the FOUR score, and (2) assessment of its reliability and validity. The Chinese version of the FOUR score was developed according to a standardized protocol. One hundred-twenty consecutive patients with acute brain damage, admitted to Nanfang Hospital (Southern Medical University, Guangdong, China) from November 2014 to February 2015, were enrolled. The inter-rater agreement for the FOUR score and GCS was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were established to determine the scales’ abilities to predict outcome.

Results

The rater agreement was excellent both for FOUR (ICC = 0.970; p < 0.001) and GCS (ICC = 0.958; p < 0.001). The FOUR score yielded an excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.930; p < 0.001). Spearman’s correlation coefficients between GCS and the FOUR score were high: r = 0.932, first rating; r = 0.887, second rating (all p < 0.001). Areas under the curve (AUC) for mortality were 0.834 (95 % CI, 0.740–0.928) and 0.815 (95 % CI, 0.723–0.908) for the FOUR score and GCS, respectively.

Conclusions

The Chinese version of the FOUR score is a reliable scale for evaluating the level of consciousness in patients with acute brain injury.

The reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) provides a structured method for assessment of the level of consciousness. Its derived sum score is applied in research and adopted in intensive care unit scoring systems. Controversy exists on the reliability of the GCS. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize evidence on the reliability of the GCS.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Observational studies that assessed the reliability of the GCS, expressed by a statistical measure, were included. Methodological quality was evaluated with the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist and its influence on results considered. Reliability estimates were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

We identified 52 relevant studies that showed significant heterogeneity in the type of reliability estimates used, patients studied, setting and characteristics of observers. Methodological quality was good (n = 7), fair (n = 18) or poor (n = 27). In good quality studies, kappa values were ≥0.6 in 85%, and all intraclass correlation coefficients indicated excellent reliability. Poor quality studies showed lower reliability estimates. Reliability for the GCS components was higher than for the sum score. Factors that may influence reliability include education and training, the level of consciousness and type of stimuli used.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 13% of studies were of good quality and inconsistency in reported reliability estimates was found. Although the reliability was adequate in good quality studies, further improvement is desirable. From a methodological perspective, the quality of reliability studies needs to be improved. From a clinical perspective, a renewed focus on training/education and standardization of assessment is required.