首页> 外文期刊>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery >Glasgow motor scale alone is equivalent to Glasgow Coma Scale at identifying children at risk for serious traumatic brain injury
【24h】

Glasgow motor scale alone is equivalent to Glasgow Coma Scale at identifying children at risk for serious traumatic brain injury

机译:在识别有严重脑外伤风险的儿童时,仅格拉斯哥运动量表就相当于格拉斯哥昏迷量表

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: We reviewed all children with a diagnosis of TBI from 2002 to 2011 at two urban Level I pediatric trauma centers. We used logistic regression to model GCS, GMS, Glasgow verbal scale (GVS), and Glasgow eye scale (GES) for seven outcomes: need for craniotomy, intracranial pressure monitoring, admission to the intensive care unit, hospital stay of 5 days or longer, discharge to rehabilitation, dependence on caretakers at follow-up, and survival to hospital discharge. We then used three measures of fit analysis to determine which scale offered the best fit for each of the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2,341 patients (mean [SD] age, 6.9 [5.8] years; 64.7% male) with TBI and GCS data available were identified. The median GCS on presentation was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 8-15); the median GMS on presentation was 6 (IQR, 4-6). The median GVS was 5 (IQR, 1-5), and the median GES was 4 (IQR, 2-4). GCS as a whole offered the best fit for the data in predicting need for intensive care unit admission, need for intracranial pressure monitoring, prolonged hospital length of stay, and discharge to rehabilitation but was equivalent to GMS in predicting need for craniotomy, survival to hospital discharge, or dependence on a caretaker at follow-up. Further analysis revealed that GMS was more predictive of these outcomes than GVS + GES, indicating that GMS provides the greatest contribution to the predictive ability of the GCS. CONCLUSION: GMS score alone and GCS do not differ in identifying children with serious TBI. Eliminating the eye and verbal components of GCS does not adversely affect the accuracy of this tool to identify children at risk for serious TBI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.
机译:背景:格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)是对神经系统状态的有效评估。对儿童的眼和言语成分的评估很难可靠地进行。我们假设仅格拉斯哥运动量表(GMS)得分异常就能可靠地识别出患有严重脑外伤(TBI)的儿童。方法:我们回顾了2002年至2011年在两个城市一级儿童儿科创伤中心诊断为TBI的所有儿童。我们使用logistic回归对GCS,GMS,格拉斯哥口头量表(GVS)和格拉斯哥眼部量表(GES)进行建模,以得出以下七个结果:开颅手术,颅内压监测,重症监护病房入院,住院5天或更长时间,出院康复,在随访中依赖看护者以及出院生存。然后,我们使用三种适合度分析方法来确定哪种量表最适合每种结果。结果:总共鉴定出2341例患者(平均[SD]年龄,6.9 [5.8]岁;男性64.7%)具有TBI和GCS数据。报告时的GCS中位数为15(四分位间距[IQR],8-15);呈现时的GMS中位数为6(IQR,4-6)。中位GVS为5(IQR,1-5),中位GES为4(IQR,2-4)。 GCS整体上最适合预测重症监护病房入院,颅内压监测,住院时间长和出院康复的数据,但与GMS预测开颅手术,住院存活率等价于GMS出院,或在随访时依赖看护人。进一步的分析表明,与GVS + GES相比,GMS对这些结果的预测性更高,这表明GMS对GCS的预测能力提供了最大的贡献。结论:单独的GMS评分和GCS在识别患有严重TBI的儿童方面没有差异。消除GCS的眼睛和言语成分不会对该工具的准确性产生不利影响,该工具可用来识别有严重TBI危险的儿童。证据级别:预后研究,III级。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号