Standardization of Moscow Coma Scale in Patients Hospitalized in Intensive Care Units in Iran

Main Article Content

Mehrdokht Mazdeh
Hosein Kimiaei- Asadi
Mohsen Razavian
Abbas Moradi

Abstract

Introduction: Moscow scale is an appropriate scale for the evaluation of the level of consciousness in patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICU). This study aimed to standardize the Moscow scale in patients hospitalized in ICU based on Iran's demographics information.

Materials and Methods: This prospective study was performed on 60 patients admitted to ICU. The subjects were selected from Farshchian Medical and Educational Center, in Hamedan Hamadan, 2016. The Moscow questionnaire was translated into Persian by a translator familiar to the subject. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the questionnaire. Moreover, the correlation between the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Moscow scale was assessed using statistical analysis.

Results: In this quasi-experimental research design, 51.7% of the patients were male and 48.3% were female. The mean age of the subjects was 60.7±20.7 years. According to our findings, 31.7%, 30%, and 21.7% of the patients were in a deep coma, vegetative state, and moderate coma, respectively. Based on the Glasgow coma scale, consciousness level was within the range of 3-8 in 93.3% of the patients, while it was higher than 8 in 6.7% of them. Cronbach's alpha coefficient indicates that the Moscow scale is fairly reliable, whereas, in the Moscow scale, the coefficient of agreement between the two observations was obtained at 0.83.

Conclusion: Based on our results, the Moscow evaluation system has favorable reliability to assess the consciousness level in comatose patients. Therefore, this scale can be introduced as an alternative for the GCS scale in Iran.

Introduction: Moscow scale is an appropriate scale for the evaluation of the level of consciousness in patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICU). This study aimed to standardize the Moscow scale in patients hospitalized in ICU based on Iran's demographics information.

Materials and Methods: This prospective study was performed on 60 patients admitted to ICU. The subjects were selected from Farshchian Medical and Educational Center, in Hamedan Hamadan, 2016. The Moscow questionnaire was translated into Persian by a translator familiar to the subject. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the questionnaire. Moreover, the correlation between the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Moscow scale was assessed using statistical analysis.

Results: In this quasi-experimental research design, 51.7% of the patients were male and 48.3% were female. The mean age of the subjects was 60.7±20.7 years. According to our findings, 31.7%, 30%, and 21.7% of the patients were in a deep coma, vegetative state, and moderate coma, respectively. Based on the Glasgow coma scale, consciousness level was within the range of 3-8 in 93.3% of the patients, while it was higher than 8 in 6.7% of them. Cronbach's alpha coefficient indicates that the Moscow scale is fairly reliable, whereas, in the Moscow scale, the coefficient of agreement between the two observations was obtained at 0.83.

Conclusion: Based on our results, the Moscow evaluation system has favorable reliability to assess the consciousness level in comatose patients. Therefore, this scale can be introduced as an alternative for the GCS scale in Iran.

Introduction: Moscow scale is an appropriate scale for the evaluation of the level of consciousness in patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICU). This study aimed to standardize the Moscow scale in patients hospitalized in ICU based on Iran's demographics information.

Materials and Methods: This prospective study was performed on 60 patients admitted to ICU. The subjects were selected from Farshchian Medical and Educational Center, in Hamedan Hamadan, 2016. The Moscow questionnaire was translated into Persian by a translator familiar to the subject. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the questionnaire. Moreover, the correlation between the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Moscow scale was assessed using statistical analysis.

Results: In this quasi-experimental research design, 51.7% of the patients were male and 48.3% were female. The mean age of the subjects was 60.7±20.7 years. According to our findings, 31.7%, 30%, and 21.7% of the patients were in a deep coma, vegetative state, and moderate coma, respectively. Based on the Glasgow coma scale, consciousness level was within the range of 3-8 in 93.3% of the patients, while it was higher than 8 in 6.7% of them. Cronbach's alpha coefficient indicates that the Moscow scale is fairly reliable, whereas, in the Moscow scale, the coefficient of agreement between the two observations was obtained at 0.83.

Conclusion: Based on our results, the Moscow evaluation system has favorable reliability to assess the consciousness level in comatose patients. Therefore, this scale can be introduced as an alternative for the GCS scale in Iran.

Keywords:
Coma, Glasgow coma scale, ICU, Moscow

Article Details

How to Cite
Mazdeh, M., Asadi, H. K.-, Razavian, M., & Moradi, A. (2020). Standardization of Moscow Coma Scale in Patients Hospitalized in Intensive Care Units in Iran. Asian Journal of Medical Principles and Clinical Practice, 3(3), 15-21. Retrieved from https://journalajmpcp.com/index.php/AJMPCP/article/view/30119
Section
Original Research Article

References

Di Perri C, Thibaut A, Heine L, Soddu A, Demertzi A, Laureys S. Measuring consciousness in coma and related states. World journal of radiology. 2014;6(8):589.

Laureys S. The neural correlate of (un) awareness: lessons from the vegetative state. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2005;9(12):556-9.

Laureys S, Owen AM, Schiff ND. Brain function in coma, vegetative state, and related disorders. The Lancet Neurology. 2004;3(9):537-46.

Faymonville M-E, Boly M, Laureys S. Functional neuroanatomy of the hypnotic state. Journal of Physiology-Paris. 2006;99(4):463-9.

Boly M, Sanders RD, Mashour GA, Laureys S. Consciousness and responsiveness: lessons from anaesthesia and the vegetative state. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology. 2013;26(4):444-9.

Sadaka F, Patel D, Lakshmanan R. The FOUR score predicts outcome in patients after traumatic brain injury. Neurocritical care. 2012;16(1):95-101.

Peng J, Deng Y, Chen F, Zhang X, Wang X, Zhou Y, et al. Validation of the Chinese version of the FOUR score in the assessment of neurosurgical patients with different level of consciousness. BMC neurology. 2015;15(1):254.

Shakhnovich A, Mamadaliev A, Abakumova L. The prognosis of the outcomes of comatose states in the first 24 hours following craniocerebral trauma. Zhurnal voprosy neirokhirurgii imeni NN Burdenko. 1990(6):11-2.

Adukauskiene D, Budryte B, Karpec D. Coma: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania). 2007;44(10):812-9.

Kukhnavets P. Moscow method: the most successful prioritization technique for any project. Opgehaald van ganttpro com: https://blog ganttpro com/en/prioritization-techniques-and-methods-for-projects-with-advantages-of-moscow-model; 2016.

Bordini AL, Luiz TF, Fernandes M, Arruda WO, Teive HA. Coma scales: a historical review. Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria. 2010;68(6):930-7.

Stoppe C, Ney J, Lomivorotov VV, Efremov SM, Benstoem C, Hill A, et al. Prediction of prolonged icu stay in cardiac surgery patients as a useful method to identify nutrition risk in cardiac surgery patients: A post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2019;43(6):768-79.

Benzer A, Mitterschiffthaler G, Pühkringer F, De La Renotiere K, Marosi M, Luef G, et al. Prediction of non-survival after trauma: Innsbruck Coma Scale. The Lancet. 1991;338 (8773):977-8.

Khajeh A, Fayyazi A, Miri-Aliabad G, Askari H, Noori N, Khajeh B. Comparison between the ability of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness Score to predict the mortality and discharge rate of pediatric intensive care unit patients. Iranian journal of pediatrics. 2014;24(5):603.

Tadrisi SD, Bahari N, Ebadi A, Madani SJ. Validity and reliability of coma scale (four score) in adult patient hospitalized in Critical Care Units. Journal of Critical Care Nursing. 2012;5(2):95-102.

Stead LG, Wijdicks EF, Bhagra A, Kashyap R, Bellolio MF, Nash DL, et al. Validation of a new coma scale, the FOUR score, in the emergency department. Neurocritical care. 2009;10(1):50.

Chen B, Grothe C, Schaller K. Validation of a new neurological score (FOUR Score) in the assessment of neurosurgical patients with severely impaired consciousness. Acta neurochirurgica. 2013;155(11):2133-9.

Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV, Manno EM, McClelland RL. Validation of a new coma scale: the FOUR score. Annals of neurology. 2005;58(4):585-93.

Cohen J. Interrater reliability and predictive validity of the FOUR score coma scale in a pediatric population. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing. 2009;41(5):261-7.

Iyer VN, Mandrekar JN, Danielson RD, Zubkov AY, Elmer JL, Wijdicks EF, editors. Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit. Mayo Clinic Proceedings; 2009: Elsevier.

Weiss N, Mutlu G, Essardy F, Nacabal C, Sauves C, Bally C, et al. The French version of the FOUR score: a new coma score. Revue neurologique. 2009;165(10):796-802.

Gorji MAH, Gorji AMH, Hosseini SH. Which score should be used in intubated patients’ Glasgow coma scale or full outline of unresponsiveness? International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research. 2015;5(2):92.

Idrovo L, Fuentes B, Medina J, Gabaldón L, Ruiz-Ares G, Abenza MJ, et al. Validation of the FOUR Score (Spanish Version) in acute stroke: an interobserver variability study. European neurology. 2010;63(6):364-9.

Fischer M, Rüegg S, Czaplinski A, Strohmeier M, Lehmann A, Tschan F, et al. Inter-rater reliability of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study. Critical care. 2010;14(2):R64.