Construct validity and reliability of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score in spontaneous subarachnoid haemorrhage caused by aneurysm rupture

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.

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.

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.