Evidence Hub

Early Glasgow Coma Scale Score and Prediction of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Secondary Analysis of Three Harmonized Prehospital Randomized Clinical Trials

Nidhi Iyanna, Jack K Donohue, John M Lorence, F. Guyette, Elizabeth Gimbel, Joshua B. Brown, Brian J. Daley, Brian J Eastridge et al.

Prehospital Emergency Care, 2024

1,490 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objectives The prehospital prediction of the radiographic diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in hemorrhagic shock patients has the potential to promote early therapeutic interventions. However, the identification of TBI is often challenging and prehospital tools remain limited. While the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score is frequently used to assess the extent of impaired consciousness after injury, the utility of the GCS scores in the early prehospital phase of care to predict TBI in patients with severe injury and concomitant shock is poorly understood. Methods We performed a post-hoc, secondary analysis utilizing data derived from three randomized prehospital clinical trials: the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma trial (PAMPER), the Study of Tranexamic Acid During Air Medical and Ground Prehospital Transport trial (STAAMP), and the Pragmatic Prehospital Type O Whole Blood Early Resuscitation (PPOWER) trial. Patients were dichotomized into two cohorts based on the presence of TBI and then further stratified into three groups based on prehospital GCS score: GCS 3, GCS 4–12, and GCS 13–15. The association between prehospital GCS score and clinical documentation of TBI was assessed. Results A total of 1,490 enrolled patients were included in this analysis. The percentage of patients with documented TBI in those with a GCS 3 was 59.5, 42.4% in those with a GCS 4–12, and 11.8% in those with a GCS 13–15. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the prehospital GCS score…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,490 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free