Article

Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score: motor score alone is a better predictor.

Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, College of Medicine, Burlington 05401, USA.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.96). 05/2003; 54(4):671-8; discussion 678-80. DOI: 10.1097/01.TA.0000058130.30490.5D
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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.
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.
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.

1 Bookmark
 · 
194 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since 1974, the Glasgow Coma Scale has provided a practical method for bedside assessment of impairment of conscious level, the clinical hallmark of acute brain injury. The scale was designed to be easy to use in clinical practice in general and specialist units and to replace previous ill-defined and inconsistent methods. 40 years later, the Glasgow Coma Scale has become an integral part of clinical practice and research worldwide. Findings using the scale have shown strong associations with those obtained by use of other early indices of severity and outcome. However, predictive statements should only be made in combination with other variables in a multivariate model. Individual patients are best described by the three components of the coma scale; whereas the derived total coma score should be used to characterise groups. Adherence to this principle and enhancement of the reliable practical use of the scale through continuing education of health professionals, standardisation across different settings, and consensus on methods to address confounders will maintain its role in clinical practice and research in the future.
    The Lancet Neurology 08/2014; 13(8):844–854. DOI:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6 · 21.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a validated assessment of neurologic state. Assessment of the eye and verbal components is difficult to reliably obtain in children. We hypothesized that an abnormal Glasgow motor scale (GMS) score alone will reliably identify children with serious traumatic brain injury (TBI).
    Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 08/2014; 77(2):304-309. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000000300 · 2.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and pupillary reactivity are well known prognostic factors in traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim of this study was to compare the GCS motor score and pupillary reactivity assessed in the field and at hospital admission, and to assess their prognostic value for six month mortality in patients with moderate or severe TBI. We studied 445 patients with moderate or severe TBI from Austria enrolled to hospital in 2009-2012. The Area Under the Curve and Nagelkerke's R2 were used to evaluate the predictive ability of GCS motor score and pupillary reactivity assessed in the field and at admission. Univariate and multivariable analyses - adjusting for age, other clinical and CT findings - were performed using combinations of field and admission GCS motor score and pupillary reactivity. Motor scores generally deteriorated from the field to admission whereas pupillary reactivity was similar. GCS motor score assessed in field (AUC=0.754; R2=0.273) and pupillary assessment at admission (AUC=0.662; R2=0.214) performed best as predictors of six months mortality in the univariate analysis. This combination also showed best performance in the adjusted analyses (AUC=0.876; R2=0.508), but the performance of both predictors assessed at admission was not much worse (AUC=0.857; R2=0.460). Field GCS motor score and pupillary reactivity at hospital admission-compared to other combinations of these parameters-possess the best prognostic value to predict six month mortality in patients with moderate to severe TBI. As differences in prognostic performance were only small, both, the field and admission values of GCS motor score and pupillary reaction may be reasonable to use in multivariable prediction models to predict six month outcome.
    Journal of Neurotrauma 09/2014; DOI:10.1089/neu.2014.3438 · 3.97 Impact Factor