Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T09:21:50.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of the Distribution of Glasgow Coma Scale Scores across Pan-Asian Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS) Regions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2022

Benjamin Capuano Open the ORCID record for Benjamin Capuano [Opens in a new window]  and
David C. Cone
Benjamin Capuano*
Affiliation:
Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, Quinnipiac University, North Haven, Connecticut, USA
David C. Cone
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
*
Correspondence: Benjamin Capuano Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine Quinnipiac University North Haven, Connecticut USA E-mail: Benjamin.capuano@quinnipiac.edu, (401-871-2166)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was devised in 1974 as a way of tracking the progress of neurosurgical coma patients. It is comprised of three components: eye movement, response to verbal commands, and motor function. Since then, it has become the primary tool in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and emergency departments for assessing cognitive function and triaging patients in the setting of acute trauma. However, the GCS was never intended to be used in such a way. It has been demonstrated that there is a high degree of inter-rater variability when assigning GCS scores for trauma patients. Potential differences in GCS score assignments between different countries were examined. It was hypothesized there would be differences in mean total and component scores.

Methods:

Using de-identified data from the Pan-Asian Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS), the distributions of GCS scores from six countries were assessed: Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Using SPSS data analysis, a one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were performed to compare the means of the three GCS components and the total GCS scores reported by EMS personnel caring for trauma patients.

Results:

Data from 15,173 cases showed significant differences in mean total GCS score between countries (P <.001) as well as in mean component GCS scores (P <.001 for each of eye, verbal, and motor). Post-hoc tests showed that EMS personnel in Korea assigned significantly lower scores compared to all other countries in both component and total GCS scores. Field personnel in Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam assigned the highest scores and significantly differed from the other three countries on component and total scores; Thailand and Taiwan had similar scores but significantly differed from the other four countries on component and total scores. Visual inspection of mean component and total GCS score histograms revealed differences in score assignment patterns among countries.

Conclusions:

There are a number of significant differences in the mean total and component GCS scores assigned by EMS personnel in the six Asian countries studied. More investigation is necessary to determine if there is clinical significance to these differences in GCS score assignments, as well as the reasons for the differences.

Keywords

AsiaGlasgow Coma ScaleGCSprehospital caretrauma
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 157 - 163
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Teasdale, G, Maas, A, Lecky, F, Manley, G, Stocchetti, N, Murray, G. The Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 years: standing the test of time. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(8):844–854.10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, J, Mathieson, C. The history of the Glasgow Coma Scale: implications for practice. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2001;23(4):52–58.10.1097/00002727-200102000-00005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattei, TA, Teasdale, GM. The story of the development and adoption of the Glasgow Coma Scale: Part I, the early years. World Neurosurg. 2020;134:311–322.10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupas, DF, Melnychuk, EM, Young, AJ. Glasgow Coma Scale motor component (“patient does not follow commands”) performs similarly to total Glasgow Coma Scale in predicting severe injury in trauma patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(6):744–750.10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.06.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caterino, JM, Raubenolt, A. The prehospital simplified motor score is as accurate as the prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale: analysis of a statewide trauma registry. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(6):492–496.10.1136/emj.2010.110437CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, SY, Shin, SD, Tanaka, H, et al. Pan-Asian Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS): rationale and methodology of an international and multicenter trauma registry. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018;22(1):58–83.10.1080/10903127.2017.1347224CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed