Field Triage of Trauma Patients Based upon the Ability to Follow Commands

Meredith, Wayne; Rutledge, Robert; Hansen, Alfred R.; Oller, Dale; Thomason, Michael; Cunningham, Paul; Baker, Christopher C.

doi:10.1097/00005373-199501000-00030

Cited by 109 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They assessed three methods of dealing with the verbal scoring of an aphasic patient: (1) eliminating the verbal component, (2) pseudoscoring with '1', and (3) median value substitution of the other components. Their data agrees with others' data [48][49][50][51][52][53][54], that the motor and eye components alone can accurately substitute for a complete GCS where the eye and motor subscale had 87% accuracy compared to 88% for the model with eye, motor, and verbal scale.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Coma: A Critical Appraisal of Popular Scoring Systems

Kornbluth

Bhardwaj

2010

Neurocrit Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous scoring scales have been proposed and validated to evaluate coma for rapid pre-hospital assessment and triage, disease severity, and prognosis for morbidity and mortality. These scoring systems have been predicated on core features that serve as a basis for this review and include ease of use, inter-rater reliability, reproducibility, and predictive value. Here we review the benefits and limitations of the most popular coma scoring systems. The methods include search of Medline, databases, and manual review of article bibliographies. Few of the many available coma scales have gained widespread approval and popularity. The best known and widely accepted scale is the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). The Reaction Level Scale (RLS85) has utility and proven benefit, but little acceptance outside of Scandinavia. The newer Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score provides an attractive replacement for all patients with fluctuating levels of consciousness and is gradually gaining wide acceptance.

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…However, they noted the limitation of this motor-only scale for use after pharmacologic paralysis. Further utility of the motor score alone has been proven in terms of its accuracy and reproducibility in pre-hospital triage [49,50], and its predictive value in TBI [51].…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Coma: A Critical Appraisal of Popular Scoring Systems

Kornbluth

Bhardwaj

2010

Neurocrit Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Im Falle eines Komas nichttraumatischen Ursprunges, waren alle 3 Parameter mit dem Outcome nach  Jahr assoziiert, obschon eine strengere Korrelation mit der verbalen und motorischen Antwort (p<0,00) als mit der okulären Antwort (p<0,05) beobachtet wurde [20]. In neueren Arbeiten kristallisiert sich eine insgesamt bessere Korrelation zwischen dem motorischen Score und dem Outcome heraus [24]. [3].…”

Section: Prognostischer Wert Der Einzelnen Parameterunclassified

Glasgow Coma Score f�r den Patienten mit Sch�del-Hirn-Trauma

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even 30 years after its first publication the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is still used worldwide to describe and assess coma. The GCS consists of three components, the ocular, motor and verbal response to standardized stimulation, and is used as a severity of illness indicator for coma of various origins. The GCS facilitates information transfer and monitoring changes in coma. In addition, it is used as a triage tool in patients with traumatic brain injury. Its prognostic value regarding the outcome after a traumatic brain injury still lacks evidence. One of the main problems is the evaluation of the GCS in sedated, paralysed and/or intubated patients. A multitude of pseudoscores exists but a universal definition has yet to be defined.

show abstract

“…This is helpful in a prognostic evaluation of patients as well as in a comparative evaluation of treatment results of different patient injuries in one centre or similar patient injuries in different centres. Although the prognostic value of these scales is not always accurate enough for prognosis of the individual patient, their value is sufficiently accurate to correlate with survival and mortality of larger patient groups [5,7,13,23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of management of patients with multiple injuries of the locomotor system

Matewski

Szymkowiak

Biliński

2007

International Orthopaedics (SICO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Body injuries are very serious problems in industrialised countries and they are frequent causes of fatalities in our times. The variety and multiple combinations of body injuries are a challenge for the trauma team. On the basis of clinical and radiological documentation 315 patients with multiple injuries of the locomotor system (MILS) were included in the study. The criterion for inclusion of the patients into the study group was identification of MILS. The study showed that these injuries often involve young people (53%) (predominantly men) aged between 16 and 45 years. Road accidents were the most frequent cause of injuries -80.6%. MILS affected the lower limb in 49.,4%, upper limb in 33.2% and pelvis in 14.

show abstract

Field Triage of Trauma Patients Based upon the Ability to Follow Commands

Cited by 109 publications

References 21 publications

Evaluation of Coma: A Critical Appraisal of Popular Scoring Systems

Evaluation of Coma: A Critical Appraisal of Popular Scoring Systems

Glasgow Coma Score f�r den Patienten mit Sch�del-Hirn-Trauma

Analysis of management of patients with multiple injuries of the locomotor system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About