Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit

Vivek N. Iyer, Jayawant Mandrekar, Richard D. Danielson, Alexander Y. Zubkov, Jennifer L. Elmer, Eelco F M Wijdicks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

78 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the FOUR (Full Outline of UnResponsiveness) score (ranging from 0 to 16), a new coma scale consisting of 4 components (eye response, motor response, brainstem reflexes, and respiration pattern), when used by the staff members of a medical intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This interobserver agreement study prospectively evaluated the use of the FOUR score to describe the condition of 100 critically ill patients from May 1, 2007, to April 30, 2008. We compared the FOUR score to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. For each patient, the FOUR score and the GCS score were determined by a randomly selected staff pair (nurse/fellow, nurse/consultant, fellow/fellow, or fellow/consultant). Pair wise weighted κ values were calculated for both scores for each observer pair. RESULTS: The interrater agreement with the FOUR score was excellent (weighted κ: eye response, 0.96; motor response, 0.97; brainstem reflex, 0.98; respiration pattern, 1.00) and similar to that obtained with the GCS (weighted κ: eye response, 0.96; motor response, 0.97; verbal response, 0.98). In terms of the predictive power for poor neurologic outcome (Modified Rankin Scale score, 3-6), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.75 for the FOUR score and 0.76 for the GCS score. The mortality rate for patients with the lowest FOUR score of 0 (89%) was higher than that for patients with the lowest GCS score of 3 (71%). CONCLUSION: The interrater agreement of FOUR score results was excellent among medical intensivists. In contrast to the GCS, all components of the FOUR score can be rated even when patients have undergone intubation. The FOUR score is a good predictor of the prognosis of critically ill patients and has important advantages over the GCS in the ICU setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)694-701
Number of pages8
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume84
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Glasgow Coma Scale
Coma
Intensive Care Units
Consultants
Critical Illness
Brain Stem
Reflex
Respiration
Intubation
ROC Curve
Nervous System
Nurses
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Iyer, V. N., Mandrekar, J., Danielson, R. D., Zubkov, A. Y., Elmer, J. L., & Wijdicks, E. F. M. (2009). Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 84(8), 694-701. https://doi.org/10.4065/84.8.694

Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit. / Iyer, Vivek N.; Mandrekar, Jayawant; Danielson, Richard D.; Zubkov, Alexander Y.; Elmer, Jennifer L.; Wijdicks, Eelco F M.

In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 84, No. 8, 2009, p. 694-701.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Iyer, VN, Mandrekar, J, Danielson, RD, Zubkov, AY, Elmer, JL & Wijdicks, EFM 2009, 'Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit', Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 84, no. 8, pp. 694-701. https://doi.org/10.4065/84.8.694
Iyer, Vivek N. ; Mandrekar, Jayawant ; Danielson, Richard D. ; Zubkov, Alexander Y. ; Elmer, Jennifer L. ; Wijdicks, Eelco F M. / Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2009 ; Vol. 84, No. 8. pp. 694-701.
@article{401e51902be64853a8b34497bf750b90,
title = "Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the FOUR (Full Outline of UnResponsiveness) score (ranging from 0 to 16), a new coma scale consisting of 4 components (eye response, motor response, brainstem reflexes, and respiration pattern), when used by the staff members of a medical intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This interobserver agreement study prospectively evaluated the use of the FOUR score to describe the condition of 100 critically ill patients from May 1, 2007, to April 30, 2008. We compared the FOUR score to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. For each patient, the FOUR score and the GCS score were determined by a randomly selected staff pair (nurse/fellow, nurse/consultant, fellow/fellow, or fellow/consultant). Pair wise weighted κ values were calculated for both scores for each observer pair. RESULTS: The interrater agreement with the FOUR score was excellent (weighted κ: eye response, 0.96; motor response, 0.97; brainstem reflex, 0.98; respiration pattern, 1.00) and similar to that obtained with the GCS (weighted κ: eye response, 0.96; motor response, 0.97; verbal response, 0.98). In terms of the predictive power for poor neurologic outcome (Modified Rankin Scale score, 3-6), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.75 for the FOUR score and 0.76 for the GCS score. The mortality rate for patients with the lowest FOUR score of 0 (89{\%}) was higher than that for patients with the lowest GCS score of 3 (71{\%}). CONCLUSION: The interrater agreement of FOUR score results was excellent among medical intensivists. In contrast to the GCS, all components of the FOUR score can be rated even when patients have undergone intubation. The FOUR score is a good predictor of the prognosis of critically ill patients and has important advantages over the GCS in the ICU setting.",
author = "Iyer, {Vivek N.} and Jayawant Mandrekar and Danielson, {Richard D.} and Zubkov, {Alexander Y.} and Elmer, {Jennifer L.} and Wijdicks, {Eelco F M}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.4065/84.8.694",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "84",
pages = "694--701",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit

AU - Iyer, Vivek N.

AU - Mandrekar, Jayawant

AU - Danielson, Richard D.

AU - Zubkov, Alexander Y.

AU - Elmer, Jennifer L.

AU - Wijdicks, Eelco F M

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the FOUR (Full Outline of UnResponsiveness) score (ranging from 0 to 16), a new coma scale consisting of 4 components (eye response, motor response, brainstem reflexes, and respiration pattern), when used by the staff members of a medical intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This interobserver agreement study prospectively evaluated the use of the FOUR score to describe the condition of 100 critically ill patients from May 1, 2007, to April 30, 2008. We compared the FOUR score to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. For each patient, the FOUR score and the GCS score were determined by a randomly selected staff pair (nurse/fellow, nurse/consultant, fellow/fellow, or fellow/consultant). Pair wise weighted κ values were calculated for both scores for each observer pair. RESULTS: The interrater agreement with the FOUR score was excellent (weighted κ: eye response, 0.96; motor response, 0.97; brainstem reflex, 0.98; respiration pattern, 1.00) and similar to that obtained with the GCS (weighted κ: eye response, 0.96; motor response, 0.97; verbal response, 0.98). In terms of the predictive power for poor neurologic outcome (Modified Rankin Scale score, 3-6), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.75 for the FOUR score and 0.76 for the GCS score. The mortality rate for patients with the lowest FOUR score of 0 (89%) was higher than that for patients with the lowest GCS score of 3 (71%). CONCLUSION: The interrater agreement of FOUR score results was excellent among medical intensivists. In contrast to the GCS, all components of the FOUR score can be rated even when patients have undergone intubation. The FOUR score is a good predictor of the prognosis of critically ill patients and has important advantages over the GCS in the ICU setting.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the FOUR (Full Outline of UnResponsiveness) score (ranging from 0 to 16), a new coma scale consisting of 4 components (eye response, motor response, brainstem reflexes, and respiration pattern), when used by the staff members of a medical intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This interobserver agreement study prospectively evaluated the use of the FOUR score to describe the condition of 100 critically ill patients from May 1, 2007, to April 30, 2008. We compared the FOUR score to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. For each patient, the FOUR score and the GCS score were determined by a randomly selected staff pair (nurse/fellow, nurse/consultant, fellow/fellow, or fellow/consultant). Pair wise weighted κ values were calculated for both scores for each observer pair. RESULTS: The interrater agreement with the FOUR score was excellent (weighted κ: eye response, 0.96; motor response, 0.97; brainstem reflex, 0.98; respiration pattern, 1.00) and similar to that obtained with the GCS (weighted κ: eye response, 0.96; motor response, 0.97; verbal response, 0.98). In terms of the predictive power for poor neurologic outcome (Modified Rankin Scale score, 3-6), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.75 for the FOUR score and 0.76 for the GCS score. The mortality rate for patients with the lowest FOUR score of 0 (89%) was higher than that for patients with the lowest GCS score of 3 (71%). CONCLUSION: The interrater agreement of FOUR score results was excellent among medical intensivists. In contrast to the GCS, all components of the FOUR score can be rated even when patients have undergone intubation. The FOUR score is a good predictor of the prognosis of critically ill patients and has important advantages over the GCS in the ICU setting.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68149167932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=68149167932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4065/84.8.694

DO - 10.4065/84.8.694

M3 - Article

C2 - 19648386

AN - SCOPUS:68149167932

VL - 84

SP - 694

EP - 701

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 8

ER -