Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 26 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2022 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

A Comparison of Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score with Glasgow Coma Scale Score in Predicting Outcomes among Patients with Altered Mental Status Admitted to the Critical Care Unit

Praveen K Javvaji, Padmaja Nagatham, Ramachandra RI Venkata, Harivarsha Puttam, Sanjo K John, Hemapriya Karavalla, Tulasiram Pulivarthi

Keywords : Altered sensorium, Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score, Glasgow Coma Scale score

Citation Information : Javvaji PK, Nagatham P, Venkata RR, Puttam H, John SK, Karavalla H, Pulivarthi T. A Comparison of Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score with Glasgow Coma Scale Score in Predicting Outcomes among Patients with Altered Mental Status Admitted to the Critical Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022; 26 (2):210-215.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23921

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 09-02-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: Comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score with the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score to find the better scoring system for predicting outcomes among altered sensorium patients in the critical care unit. Materials and methods: This is a prospective observational study. It included 100 patients of altered sensorium, whose GCS and FOUR scores were calculated at admission and followed up till death or discharge to note the outcome. Individual demographics and diagnosis were recorded, and the results were analyzed statistically. Results: The correlation between the two scores was excellent, with the Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.88. Discrimination ability of the two scoring systems, as assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, was 0.778 for GCS score and 0.883 for FOUR score (p <0.001). When area under the curve (AUC) was calculated exclusively in stroke cases, it was 0.836 for GCS score and 0.944 for FOUR score. Among nonstroke cases, the AUC was 0.756 and 0.859, respectively. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping among the corresponding scores. Conclusion: The above study concludes that there is a good correlation between GCS and FOUR scores in predicting outcomes. Superiority of FOUR score could not be established statistically in view of overlapping confidence limits. However, it performed at par with GCS in prognosticating mortality among patients with altered sensorium. Clinical significance: In critically ill patients with altered sensorium, explaining the prognosis to the attendants is a challenge for the physician. The commonly used GCS score has several shortcomings, especially in intubated patients. Use of the FOUR score can overcome these shortcomings and help in prognostication of these patients. In view of its good correlation with GCS score and equal efficacy in predicting outcomes in varied etiologies, it can be used as a good alternative to the GCS score.

  1. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet 1974;304(7872):81–84. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0.
  2. Kasprowicz M, Burzynska M, Melcer T, Kübler A. A comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in predictive modelling in traumatic brain injury. Br J Neurosurg 2016;30(2):211–220. DOI: 10.3109/02688697.2016.1161173.
  3. Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV, Manno EM, McClelland RL. Validation of a new coma scale: the FOUR score. Ann Neurol 2005;58(4):585–593. DOI: 10.1002/ana.20611.
  4. Mishra RK, Mahajan C, Kapoor I, Prabhakar H, Bithal PK. Comparison of Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score and the conventional scores in predicting outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage patients. Indian J Anaesth 2019;63(4):295. DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_786_18.
  5. Singhal V. Clinical approach to acute decline in sensorium. Indian J Crit Care Med 2019;23(Suppl. 2):S120. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23188.
  6. Iyer VN, Mandrekar JN, Danielson RD, Zubkov AY, Elmer JL, Wijdicks EF. Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit. Mayo Clinic Proc 2009;84(8):694–701. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)60519-3.
  7. Ghelichkhani P, Esmaeili M, Hosseini M, Seylani K. Glasgow Coma Scale and FOUR Score in predicting the mortality of trauma patients; a diagnostic accuracy study. Emergency 2018;6(1):e42. DOI:
  8. Kishor K, Sanjeeb S. Comparison of outcome predictions by the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score in the neurological and neurosurgical patients in the intensive care unit. Indian J Crit Med 2016;20(8):473–476. DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.188199.
  9. Sepahvand E, Jalalı R, Mırzaeı M, Ebrahımzadeh F, Ahmadı M, Amraıı E. Glasgow Coma Scale versus full outline of UnResponsiveness Scale for prediction of outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in the intensive care unit. Turk Neurosurg 2016;26(5):720–724. DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.13536-14.0.
  10. Eken C, Kartal M, Bacanli A, Eray O. Comparison of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score Coma Scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale in an emergency setting population. Eur J Emerg Med 2009;16(1):29–36. DOI: 10.1097/MEJ.0b013e32830346ab.
  11. Foo CC, Loan JJ, Brennan PM. The relationship of the FOUR score to patient outcome: a systematic review. J Neurotrauma 2019;36(17):2469–2483. DOI: 10.1089/neu.2018.6243.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.