Studi Analisis dan Literature Review Tentang Perbandingan Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) dan Disability Rating Scale (DRS) dalam Penilaian Hasil Cedera Otak Traumatik
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24843/JBN.2025.v09.i02.p07Kata Kunci:
Traumatic brain injury (TBI), Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E), Disability Rating Scale (DRS), prognosis.Abstrak
Tujuan: Penilaian hasil klinis pada pasien dengan cedera otak traumatis (COT) merupakan komponen penting dalam menentukan prognosis dan merencanakan intervensi terapeutik yang tepat. Review artikel ini membahas mengenai perbandingan, kelebihan dan kelemahan Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) dan Disability Rating Scale (DRS) pada pasien Cedera otak traumatik. Metode: Artikel ini merupakan suatu studi literatur yang membahas mengenai kelebihan dan kelemahan GOS-E dan DRS serta pemanfaatannya dalam management cedera otak traumatik. Seleksi artikel dilakukan secara purposive dari 20 jurnal. Hasil: GOS-E memberikan evaluasi yang lebih terperinci mengenai tingkat pemulihan pasien dengan mengkategorikan hasil ke dalam delapan tingkat, mulai dari kematian hingga pemulihan penuh. Di sisi lain, DRS menilai tingkat disabilitas dan pemulihan dengan fokus pada kesadaran, fungsi motorik, dan aktivitas sehari-hari. Ditemukan bahwa meskipun GOS-E menawarkan detail yang lebih dalam mengenai hasil jangka panjang, DRS lebih mudah digunakan dan lebih cepat dalam administrasi. Kesimpulan: GOS-E dan DRS memiliki kekuatan dalam prediksi luaran jangka Panjang, sedangkan DRS memiliki kelebihan dari segi kemudahan dalam evaluasi dan pengaplikasian. Hasil dari tinjauan ini diharapkan dapat memberikan wawasan yang lebih baik bagi praktisi klinis dalam memilih alat penilaian yang paling sesuai
Aim: The assessment of clinical outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an essential component in determining prognosis and planning appropriate therapeutic interventions. This review article discusses the comparison, advantages, and limitations of the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) and the Disability Rating Scale (DRS) in patients with traumatic brain injury.Method: This article is a literature review that examines the strengths and weaknesses of GOS-E and DRS, as well as their utilization in the management of traumatic brain injury. Article selection was carried out purposively from 20 journals. Results: GOS-E provides a more detailed evaluation of patient recovery by categorizing outcomes into eight levels, ranging from death to full recovery. On the other hand, DRS assesses the degree of disability and recovery with a focus on consciousness, motor function, and daily activities. It was found that although GOS-E offers more in-depth details regarding long-term outcomes, DRS is easier to use and quicker to administer. Conclusion: Both GOS-E and DRS have strengths in predicting long-term outcomes, while DRS has the advantage of being simpler to evaluate and apply. The findings of this review are expected to provide better insights for clinical practitioners in selecting the most appropriate assessment tool.
Referensi
1. Snider SB, Zambrano RD, Giacino JT, Malec JF, Cifu DX, Chapman JL. Comparison of common outcome measures for assessing independence in patients diagnosed with disorders of consciousness: a Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems study. J Neurotrauma. 2022;39(17–18):1222-30.
2. McCrea MA, Giacino JT, Barber J, Temkin NR, Nelson LD, Levin HS, et al. Functional outcomes over the first year after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury in the prospective, longitudinal TRACK-TBI study. JAMA Neurol. 2021;78(8):982-92.
3. Hammond FM, Giacino JT, Nakase-Richardson R, Sherer M, Zafonte RD, Whyte J, et al. Disorders of consciousness due to traumatic brain injury: functional status 10 years post-injury. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36(7):1136-46.
4. Whyte J, Giacino JT, Heinemann AW, Bodien Y, Hart T, Sherer M, et al. Brain Injury Functional Outcome Measure (BI-FOM): a single instrument capturing the range of recovery in moderate-severe traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102(1):87-96.
5. Nakase-Richardson R, Whyte J, Giacino JT, Pavawalla S, Barnett SD, Yablon SA, et al. Longitudinal outcome of patients with disordered consciousness in the NIDRR TBI Model Systems Programs. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29(1):59-65.
6. Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma. 1998;15(8):573-85.
7. Horton L, Rhodes J, Wilson L. Randomized controlled trials in adult traumatic brain injury: a systematic review on the use and reporting of clinical outcome assessments. J Neurotrauma. 2018;35(17):2005-14.
8. Rappaport M, Hall KM, Hopkins K, Belleza T, Cope DN. Disability rating scale for severe head trauma: coma to community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982;63(3):118-23.
9. Rutz Voumard R, Kiker WA, Dugger KM, Engelberg RA, Borasio GD, Curtis JR, et al. Adapting to a new normal after severe acute brain injury: an observational cohort using a sequential explanatory design. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(8):1322-32.
10. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(12):1226-32.
11. Corrigan JD, Smith-Knapp K, Granger CV. Validity of the functional independence measure for persons with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78(8):828-34.
12. Granger CV, Divan N, Fiedler RC. Functional assessment scales. A study of persons after traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;74(2):107-13.
13. Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(5):531-6.
14. Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnson J, Rossiter D, Petruckevitch A, Thompson AJ. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil. 1995;17(1):10-4.
15. Reistetter TA, Graham JE, Deutsch A, Granger CV, Markello S, Ottenbacher KJ. Utility of functional status for classifying community versus institutional discharges after inpatient rehabilitation for stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(3):345-50.
16. Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. The FIM instrument: its background, structure, and usefulness. (Online) 2012 Dec. [Cited 2023 June 20] Available from: http://docshare02.docshare.tips/files/23187/231876238.pdf
17. Black TM, Soltis T, Bartlett C. Using the Functional Independence Measure instrument to predict stroke rehabilitation outcomes. Rehabil Nurs. 1999;24(3):109-14,121.
18. Chumney D, Nollinger K, Shesko K, Skop K, Spencer M, Newton RA. Ability of Functional Independence Measure to accurately predict functional outcome of stroke-specific population: systematic review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(1):17-29.
19. Bagiella E, Novack TA, Ansel B, Diaz-Arrastia R, Dikmen S, Hart T, Temkin N. Measuring outcome in traumatic brain injury treatment trials: recommendations from the Traumatic Brain Injury Clinical Trials Network. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2010;25(5):375-82.
20. McMillan T, Wilson L, Ponsford J, Levin H, Teasdale G, Bond M. The Glasgow Outcome Scale—40 years of application and refinement. Nat Rev Neurol. 2016;12(8):477-85.
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2025 JBN (Jurnal Bedah Nasional)
Artikel ini berlisensiCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
