| Abstrakt: |
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
