Literature DB >> 18520233

A trauma mortality prediction model based on the anatomic injury scale.

Turner Osler1, Laurent Glance, Jeffery S Buzas, Dana Mukamel, Jacob Wagner, Andrew Dick.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop a statistically rigorous trauma mortality prediction model based on empiric estimates of severity for each injury in the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) and compare the performance of this new model with the injury severity score (ISS). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Mortality rates at trauma centers should only be compared after adjusting for differences in injury severity, but no reliable measure of injury severity currently exists. The ISS has served as the standard measure of anatomic injury for 30 years. However, it relies on the individual injury severities assigned by experts in the AIS, is nonmonotonic with respect to mortality, and fails to perform even as well as a far simpler model based on the single worst injury a patient has sustained.
METHODS: This study is based on data from 702,229 injured patients in the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB 6.1) hospitalized between 2001 and 2005. Sixty percent of the data was used to derive an empiric measure of severity of each of the 1322 injuries in the AIS lexicon by taking the weighted average of coefficients estimated using 2 separate regression models. The remaining 40% of the data was use to create 3 exploratory mortality prediction models and compare their performance with the ISS using measures of discrimination (C statistic), calibration (Hosmer Lemeshow statistic and calibration curves), and the Akaike information criterion.
RESULTS: Three new models based on empiric AIS injury severities were developed. All of these new models discriminated survivors from nonsurvivors better than the ISS, but one, the trauma mortality prediction model (TMPM), had both better discrimination [ROCTMPM = 0.901 (0.898-0.905), ROCISS = 0.871 (0.866-0.877)] and better calibration [HLTMPM = 58 (35-91), HLISS = 296 (228-357)] than the ISS. The addition of age, gender, and mechanism of injury improved all models, but the augmented TMPM dominated ISS by every measure [ROCTMPM = 0.925(0.921-0.928), ROCISS = 0.904(0.901-0.909), HLTMPM = 18 (12-31), HLISS = 54 (30-64)].
CONCLUSIONS: Trauma mortality models based on empirical estimates of individual injury severity better discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors than does the current standard, ISS. One such model, the TMPM, has both superior discrimination and calibration when compared with the ISS. The TMPM should replace the ISS as the standard measure of overall injury severity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18520233     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31816ffb3f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  20 in total

1.  Prediction of multiple infections after severe burn trauma: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Shuangchun Yan; Amy Tsurumi; Yok-Ai Que; Colleen M Ryan; Arunava Bandyopadhaya; Alexander A Morgan; Patrick J Flaherty; Ronald G Tompkins; Laurence G Rahme
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Development and validation of the mortality risk for trauma comorbidity index.

Authors:  Hilaire J Thompson; Frederick P Rivara; Avery Nathens; Jin Wang; Gregory J Jurkovich; Ellen J Mackenzie
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Benchmarking of trauma care worldwide: the potential value of an International Trauma Data Bank (ITDB).

Authors:  Adil H Haider; Zain G Hashmi; Sonia Gupta; Syed Nabeel Zafar; Jean-Stephane David; David T Efron; Kent A Stevens; Hasnain Zafar; Eric B Schneider; Eric Voiglio; Raul Coimbra; Elliott R Haut
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Denver ED Trauma Organ Failure Score outperforms traditional methods of risk stratification in trauma.

Authors:  Jody A Vogel; Nicole Seleno; Emily Hopkins; Christopher B Colwell; Craig Gravitz; Jason S Haukoos
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 2.469

5.  In search of benchmarking for mortality following multiple trauma: a Swiss trauma center experience.

Authors:  Ida Füglistaler-Montali; Corinna Attenberger; Philipp Füglistaler; Augustinus L Jacob; Felix Amsler; Thomas Gross
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Trends in racial disparities for injured patients admitted to trauma centers.

Authors:  Laurent G Glance; Turner M Osler; Dana B Mukamel; J Wayne Meredith; Yue Li; Feng Qian; Andrew W Dick
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Risk factors for venous thromboembolism after acute trauma: A population-based case-cohort study.

Authors:  Myung S Park; Sarah E Perkins; Grant M Spears; Aneel A Ashrani; Cynthia L Leibson; Christine M Boos; William S Harmsen; Donald H Jenkins; Kent R Bailey; Karla V Ballman; John A Heit
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 3.944

8.  An economic evaluation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis strategies in critically ill trauma patients at risk of bleeding.

Authors:  T Carter Chiasson; Braden J Manns; Henry Thomas Stelfox
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-06-23       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  The definition of major trauma using different revisions of the abbreviated injury scale.

Authors:  Jan C Van Ditshuizen; Charlie A Sewalt; Cameron S Palmer; Esther M M Van Lieshout; Michiel H J Verhofstad; Dennis Den Hartog
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 10.  Systematic review of predictive performance of injury severity scoring tools.

Authors:  Hideo Tohira; Ian Jacobs; David Mountain; Nick Gibson; Allen Yeo
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.