Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Validation of a New Coma Scale, the FOUR Score, in the Emergency Department

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neurocritical Care Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score has previously been validated scale in the Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit. In this study, we sought to validate the use of FOUR score in the emergency department (ED) using non-neurology staff. We also compared its performance to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and correlated it to functional outcome at hospital discharge and overall survival.

Methods

We prospectively rated 69 patients with initial neurologic symptoms presenting to the ED. Three types of examiners performed the FOUR score: ED physician, ED resident, and ED nurse. Patients were followed through hospital discharge; functional outcome was measured using modified Rankin Score (mRS).

Results

Interrater reliability for FOUR score and GCS was excellent (respectively, κw = 0.88 and 0.86). Both FOUR score and GCS predicted functional outcome, and overall survival with and without adjustment for age, sex, and alertness group.

Conclusion

The FOUR score can be reliably used in the ED by non-neurology staff. Both FOUR score and GCS performed equally well, but the neurologic detail incorporated in the FOUR score makes it more useful in management and triage of patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2:81–4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91639-0.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kerby JD, MacLennan PA, Burton JN, McGwin G Jr, Rue LWIII. Agreement between prehospital and emergency department Glasgow coma scores. J Trauma. 2007;63:1026–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Menegazzi JJ, Davis EA, Sucov AN, Paris PM. Reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale when used by emergency physicians and paramedics. J Trauma. 1993;34:46–8. doi:10.1097/00005373-199301000-00008.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Báez AA, Giráldez EM, De Peña JM. Precision and reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale score among a cohort of Latin American prehospital emergency care providers. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22:230–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gill MR, Reiley DG, Green SM. Interrater reliability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43:215–23. doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00814-X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Holdgate A, Ching N, Angonese L. Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness. Emerg Med Australas. 2006;18:379–84. doi:10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00867.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Buechler CM, Blostein PA, Koestner A, Hurt K, Schaars M, McKernan J. Variation among trauma centers’ calculation of Glasgow Coma Scale score: results of a national survey. J Trauma. 1998;45:429–32. doi:10.1097/00005373-199809000-00001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wijdicks EF. Clinical scales for comatose patients: the Glasgow Coma Scale in historical context and the new FOUR score. Rev Neurol Dis. 2006;3:109–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV, et al. Validation of a new coma scale: The FOUR score. Ann Neurol. 2005;58:585–93. doi:10.1002/ana.20611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wolf CA, Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, et al. Further validation of the FOUR score coma scale by intensive care nurses. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:435–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sternbach GL. The Glasgow Coma Scale. J Emerg Med. 2000;19:67–71. doi:10.1016/S0736-4679(00)00182-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. II. Prognosis. Scott Med J. 1957;2(5):200–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, et al. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biostatistics. 1977;33:159–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Haukoos JS, Gill MR, Rabon RE, Gravitz CS, Green SM. Validation of the simplified motor score for the prediction of brain injury outcomes after trauma. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50:18–24. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.10.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Latha G. Stead.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stead, L.G., Wijdicks, E.F.M., Bhagra, A. et al. Validation of a New Coma Scale, the FOUR Score, in the Emergency Department. Neurocrit Care 10, 50–54 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-008-9145-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-008-9145-0

Keywords

Navigation