Author/Authors :
Khari, Sorour School of Nursing and Midwifery - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Zandi, Mitra School of Nursing and Midwifery - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Yousefifard, Mahmoud Physiology Research Center - Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract :
Introduction: There is no consensus on the performance of decision rules in predicting the prognosis of trauma
patients. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the value of Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and physiologic
scoring systems in predicting mortality and poor outcome of trauma patients. Methods: This diagnostic accu-
racy study was conducted on multiple trauma patients admitted to the intensive care units of two hospitals in
Tehran, Iran, from 21 November 2020 to 22 May 2021. The patients’ demographic characteristics, length of stay
in the intensive care unit (ICU), the vital signs, and the GCS on admission were recorded. Finally, the mortal-
ity, disability, and complete recovery of patients at the time of discharge were evaluated and receiver operating
characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to compare the performance of physiologic scoring systems with
GCS. Results: 200 trauma patients with the mean age of 43.53±19.84 years were evaluated (74% male). The area
under the ROC curve for New Trauma Score (NTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Worthing Physiological Scor-
ing System (WPSS), Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Modified
Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic
Blood Pressure score (GAPS) ,Glasgow coma scale (GCS) in prediction of mortality were 0.95, 0.95, 0.83, 0.89,
0.91, 0.84, 0.77, 0.97, and 0.98 respectively. The performance of GCS was statistically superior to RTS (P=0.005),
WPSS (P=0.0001), RAPS (P=0.0002), REMS (P=0.002), MEWS (P<0.0001), and NEWS (P<0.0001). However, the
performance of GCS, NTS (P=0.146), and GAPS (P=0.513) were not significantly different. Also, in prediction
of poor outcomes, the AUC of GCS (0.98) was significantly higher than RTS (0.95), RAPS (0.85), REMS (0.85),
MEWS (0.84), NEWS (0.77), and WPSS (0.75). Conclusion: The GCS score seems to be a better instrument to
predict mortality and poor outcome in trauma patients compared to other tools due to its high accuracy, wide
application, and easy calculation.
Keywords :
Physiology Research Center , Iran University of Medical Sciences , Tehran , Iran