این سایت در حال حاضر پشتیبانی نمی شود و امکان دارد داده های نشریات بروز نباشند
Advanced Journal of Emergency Medicine، جلد ۴، شماره ۴، صفحات ۰-۰
عنوان فارسی
چکیده فارسی مقاله
کلیدواژه‌های فارسی مقاله
عنوان انگلیسی Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale with Physiologic Scoring Scales in Prediction of In-Hospital Outcome of Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study
چکیده انگلیسی مقاله Introduction: Limitations of Glasgow coma scale (GCS) led the researchers to designing new physiologic scoring systems such as revised trauma score (RTS), rapid acute physiology score (RAPS) and rapid emergency medicine score (REMS), and worthing physiological scoring system (WPSS). However, it is not yet known whether these models have any advantage over GCS.  Objective: The present study attempted to compare the values of 4 physiologic scoring systems including RTS, RAPS, REMS and WPSS with GCS in predicting in-hospital mortality of trauma patients.  Methods: The present diagnostic accuracy study was performed on trauma patients presenting to emergency departments of 4 hospitals in Iran throughout 2017. Patients were clinically evaluated and were followed until discharge from hospital. Finally, the status of patients regarding mortality and poor outcome (death, vegetative status, severe disability, and moderate disability) was recorded and predictive value of GCS was compared with physiologic scales.  Results: Area under the ROC curve of GCS in prediction of in-hospital mortality was not significantly different from that of REMS (0.89 vs. 0.91; p=0.298), RAPS (0.89 vs. 0.88; p=0.657), and WPSS (0.89 vs 0.91; p=0.168) but was significantly more than RTS (0.89 vs. 0.85; p=0.002). In addition, area under the ROC curves of GCS, REMS, RAPS, WPSS and RTS in prediction of poor outcome were 0.89, 0.88, 0.88, 0.91, and 0.81, respectively. Area under the ROC curve of GCS in prediction of poor outcome did not differ from area under the ROC curves of REMS (0.89 vs. 0.88; p=0.887), RAPS (0.89 vs. 0.88; p=0.601) and WPSS (0.89 vs. 0.91; p=0.113) but was significantly higher than RTS (0.89 vs. 0.81; p< 0.0001).  Conclusions: Findings of the present study indicated that GCS is still the best method for evaluating injury severity and trauma patients’ outcome in the emergency department; because it is easier to calculate and assess than many physiologic scales and it has a better performance in predicting in-hospital mortality and poor outcome compared to RTS.
کلیدواژه‌های انگلیسی مقاله
نویسندگان مقاله | Mahmoud Yousefifard
Physiology Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


| Kavous Shahsavarinia
Road Traffic Injury Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran


| Gholamreza Faridaalee
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maragheh University of Medical Sciences, Maragheh, Iran


| Hossein Dinpanah
Department of Emergency Medicine, 9-Day Hospital, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran


| Sajjad Ahmadi
Emergency Medicine Research Team, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran


| Saeed Safari
Department of Emergency Medicine, Shohadaye Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
نشانی اینترنتی https://fem.tums.ac.ir/index.php/fem/article/view/384
فایل مقاله فایلی برای مقاله ذخیره نشده است
کد مقاله (doi)
زبان مقاله منتشر شده
موضوعات مقاله منتشر شده
نوع مقاله منتشر شده
برگشت به: صفحه اول پایگاه   |   نسخه مرتبط   |   نشریه مرتبط   |   فهرست نشریات