Document Detail

Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score: motor score alone is a better predictor.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  12707528     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) has served as an assessment tool in head trauma and as a measure of physiologic derangement in outcome models (e.g., TRISS and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation), but it has not been rigorously examined as a predictor of outcome. METHODS: Using a large trauma data set (National Trauma Data Bank, N = 204,181), we compared the predictive power (pseudo R2, receiver operating characteristic [ROC]) and calibration of the GCS to its components. RESULTS: The GCS is actually a collection of 120 different combinations of its 3 predictors grouped into 12 different scores by simple addition (motor [m] + verbal [v] + eye [e] = GCS score). Problematically, different combinations summing to a single GCS score may actually have very different mortalities. For example, the GCS score of 4 can represent any of three mve combinations: 2/1/1 (survival = 0.52), 1/2/1 (survival = 0.73), or 1/1/2 (survival = 0.81). In addition, the relationship between GCS score and survival is not linear, and furthermore, a logistic model based on GCS score is poorly calibrated even after fractional polynomial transformation. The m component of the GCS, by contrast, is not only linearly related to survival, but preserves almost all the predictive power of the GCS (ROC(GCS) = 0.89, ROC(m) = 0.87; pseudo R2(GCS) = 0.42, pseudo R2(m) = 0.40) and has a better calibrated logistic model. CONCLUSION: Because the motor component of the GCS contains virtually all the information of the GCS itself, can be measured in intubated patients, and is much better behaved statistically than the GCS, we believe that the motor component of the GCS should replace the GCS in outcome prediction models. Because the m component is nonlinear in the log odds of survival, however, it should be mathematically transformed before its inclusion in broader outcome prediction models.
C Healey; Turner M Osler; Frederick B Rogers; Mark A Healey; Laurent G Glance; Patrick D Kilgo; Steven R Shackford; J Wayne Meredith
Related Documents :
16482368 - Scoring and staging systems using cox linear regression modeling and recursive partitio...
23733728 - Validation of a live animal model for training in endoscopic hemostasis of upper gastro...
14590588 - Comparing methods for estimating premorbid intellectual functioning.
1467748 - Computer-assisted interpretation of visual fields in glaucoma.
22238868 - Investigation of habitat effects on the spatial distribution of lutzomyia shannoni acro...
15677088 - A safety analysis technique derived from skills analysis.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Journal of trauma     Volume:  54     ISSN:  0022-5282     ISO Abbreviation:  J Trauma     Publication Date:  2003 Apr 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2003-04-22     Completed Date:  2003-05-20     Revised Date:  2004-11-17    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0376373     Medline TA:  J Trauma     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  671-8; discussion 678-80     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, College of Medicine, Burlington 05401, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Chi-Square Distribution
Glasgow Coma Scale*
Motor Skills
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)*
Predictive Value of Tests
ROC Curve
Statistics, Nonparametric

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Effect of a voluntary trauma system on preventable death and inappropriate care in a rural state.
Next Document:  Aeromedical service: how does it actually contribute to the mission?