Clinimetric Application of FOUR Scale as in Treatment and Rehabilitation of Patients With Acute Cerebral Injury. - a Prospective Observational Mono-center Cohort Study

The key step in choosing a strategy for treating acute cerebral insufficiency is the assessment of the severity of cerebral damage and prognosis. The importance of correcting the severity of damage and prognosis for the choice of treatment strategy is beyond doubt.

At the same time, the complexity of objective evaluation is preserved throughout the world, after more than 40 years, has become an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. The findings obtained using GCS showed a strong relationship with those obtained using other indicators of severity and outcome. Although the scale of Glasgow coma is considered routine method, it has a number of significant drawbacks.

First, the verbal response of GCS tests often becomes inadequate in psychomotor-excited patients. On the contrary, in many patients with depressed consciousness, the verbal response is insufficient. Moreover, the GSC verbal response assessment cannot be applied to critical patients or those who have undergone intubation.

Secondly, and most importantly, GSC does not assess brain stem reflexes, eye movements, or complex motor responses in patients with altered consciousness. In addition, the GCS score is numerically skewed toward the motor response (the maximum number of points given for the motor response). These deficiencies previously caused repeated attempts to improve GCS: reaction level scale (RLS85), comprehensive consciousness level Scale (CLOCS), clinical neurological assessment (CNA) , Coma Recovery Scale (CRS), Glasgow-Liege Scale (GLS), Innsbruck Coma Scale (ICS), 15 and 60-second test (SST). Similar scans, tests are very long and laborious. None of these subsequently gained enough weight to replace GCS.

Third, despite the fact that GSC is regularly used in therapeutic and surgical intensive care units and resuscitation units, as well as the fact that it is usually used in conjunction with the APACHE system assessment, reliability in predicting outcomes in patients is unsatisfactory. Fourthly, Rowley and Fielding found that the reliability of the GCS score increases with the experience of its users and that user inexperience is associated with a high error rate.