A novel scoring system to predict the requirement for surgical intervention in victims of motor vehicle crashes: Development and validation using independent cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Given that there are still considerable number of facilities which lack surgical specialists round the clock across the world, the ability to estimate the requirement for emergency surgery in victims of motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) can ensure appropriate resource allocation. In this study, a surgical intervention in victims of MVC (SIM) score was developed and validated, using independent patient cohorts.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified MVC victims in a nationwide trauma registry (2004-2016). Adults ≥ 15 years who presented with palpable pulse were included. Patients with missing data on the type/date of surgery were excluded. Patient were allocated to development or validation cohorts based on the date of injury. After missing values were imputed, predictors of the need for emergency thoracotomy and/or laparotomy were identified with multivariate logistic regression, and scores were then assigned using odds ratios. The SIM score was validated with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration plots of SIM score-derived probability and observed rates of emergency surgery.
RESULTS: We assigned 13,328 and 12,348 patients to the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Age, motor vehicle collision and vital signs on hospital arrival were identified as independent predictors for emergency thoracotomy and/or laparotomy, and SIM score was developed as 0-9 scales. The score has a good discriminatory power (AUROC = 0.79; 95% confidence interval = 0.77-0.81), and both estimated and observed rates of emergency surgery increased stepwise from 1% at a score ≤ 1 to almost 40% at a score ≥ 8 with linear calibration plots.
CONCLUSIONS: The SIM score was developed and validated to accurately estimate the need for emergent thoracotomy and/or laparotomy in MVC victims.

Introduction

Motor vehicle crash (MVC) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity across the world [1-3]. Despite the advent of sophisticated engineering technology and improvements in traffic infrastructure that aimed to reduce the incidence of MVCs, nearly 100 deaths and more than 6500 injuries are reported each day even in economically developed nations [4].

A retrospective analysis of mortality patterns associated with vehicular injuries using national data in the UK and the US revealed a significantly lower in-hospital mortality or morbidity in patients with severe injuries who received care at high-level trauma centres [5,6]; however, a population-based ecologic study found that facilities lacking surgical specialists including general- and neuro-surgeons round the clock showed increased MVC-related mortality [2]. Several retrospective studies regarding quality improvement also reported that delayed laparotomy for blunt abdominal trauma was associated with decreased survival [7,8], and some investigators have suggested timely thoracotomy to obtain favorable clinical outcomes [9,10].

Considering that timely surgical interventions improve outcomes for trauma victims following MVCs, the strategy for trauma care should include early hemostasis, decontamination of peritoneal infection, and early control of digestive fluid leakage, particularly outside the well-designed trauma system or designated trauma centres. Although several triage algorithms using mechanism of injury (MOI) and/or anatomic and physiologic criteria successfully identified patients who needed treatment at high-level trauma centres [11-13], they have not been validated to predict the need for emergency surgical intervention, particularly for laparotomy and thoracotomy. It should be emphasised that various scoring scales, such as Emergency Surgical Score (ESS) and Emergency Surgery Acuity Score (ESAS), have been developed to identify perioperative mortality or morbidity, but not to predict emergency surgical intervention [14,15].

Accordingly, we aimed to establish a universally acceptable grading system that can predict the requirement for emergency surgery, including laparotomy and thoracotomy, within 24 hours after MVCs. Thus, using a nationwide database, we developed a novel index, the surgical intervention in victims of MVC (SIM) score, which was examined to possess sufficient applicability in an independent cohort derived from the database. In this study, we hypothesised that the SIM score would possess sufficient calibration and discriminatory power to predict the need for surgical intervention in trauma victims following MVCs.

Methods

Study design and setting

This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank (JTDB), that was established as a Japanese nationwide trauma registry in 2003 and is maintained by the Japanese Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, with more than 200 participating major hospitals, including tertiary care centres. Data were collected prospectively and entered into the online data collection portal by treating physicians or volunteer registrars designated by each hospital. All collaborating hospitals obtained individual local institutional review board approval for the Conduct of Human Research before initiating the study (the Keio University School of Medicine, Ethics Committee approved the current study. Application number is 20090087). Requirement for informed consent was waived because of the anonymity of the data being used.

Study population

Patients retrospectively identified in the JTDB were MVC victims who arrived at each participating centre between 2004 and 2016. Patients aged ≥ 15 years and with measurable systolic blood pressure upon arrival were included and those with missing data on the type of surgery, or unknown and missing dates of injury and/or surgery were excluded.

Data collection

Data collected included age, sex, MOI, prehospital vital signs, vital signs upon arrival, any surgical procedures or angiography, date of injury, date of surgery, transfusion within 24 hours after arrival, Abbreviated Injury Scale score, Injury Severity Score (ISS), length of hospital stay and survival status during discharge. Emergency surgical intervention was defined as thoracotomy and/or laparotomy performed within 24 hours after arrival. Craniotomy and vascular surgery in extremities were not included as the emergency surgical intervention in this study because some anatomic and physiologic criteria, such as Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and massive bleeding and/or distal circulatory deficit in extremities have been reported to be able to predict the need for such surgical interventions [16,17]. Emergency hemostatic surgery was defined as surgical hemostasis performed within 24 hours after arrival. Emergency hemostatic interventional radiology (IVR) was defined as arterial embolization within 24 hours after arrival, which was performed under IVR prior to any surgical intervention. Additional hemostatic IVR was defined as arterial embolization performed within 48 hours after initial hemostatic procedure. Conflicting and/or ambiguous data elements were coded as missing data.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was the requirement of emergency surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency hemostatic surgery, emergency hemostatic IVR, survival to discharge, and hospital-free days, also known as days alive and out of hospital, till day 90 after injury (combination of in-hospital death and length of hospital stay defined as the number of days alive and out of the hospital). Patients who died during the index hospitalisation and those who were hospitalised for >90 days were classified as having 0 hospital-free days. For patients who were discharged alive before day 90, hospital-free days were calculated as 90 minus length of hospital stay.

Sample size estimation and data preparation

After patients were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, they were assigned to the development or validation cohorts based on the date of injury; patients who were injured between 2004 and 2012 were in the model development cohort while remaining patients who were injured between 2013 and 2016 were allocated to the model validation cohort. Subsequently, development and validation of the grading index was performed following standard methods of sample size estimation for multivariate logistic regression with at least 10 outcomes for each potential predictor analysed in the model. Thus, for an expected rate of emergency surgery of 3%–5%, at least 7000 patients (>200 emergency surgeries) were required in the development cohort to appropriately perform multivariate logistic regression with 20 potential predictors [18].

Development of the SIM score

The scoring system was developed using multivariate logistic regression models. The primary outcome was entered in the model as a dependent variable and potential predictive variables were selected from known survival predictors in trauma victims and other clinical variables relevant to MVC [11-13,19-22]. Owing to clinical plausibility and practicality, age and vital signs were transformed to binary variables as follows: age (< 80 or ≥80 years) [23], GCS(≤13 or ≥14), systolic blood pressure (sBP; <110 or ≥110 mmHg) [22], heart rate (HR; <100 or ≥100 bpm), respiratory rate (RR; <22 or ≥22 /min).

The results from logistic regression modelling were used to identify predictors of the requirement for surgical intervention from the potential predictor variables assessed in the models. Weighted averages were used to assign scores to each selected predictor or variable in the final severity grading index termed the SIM score. The coefficients, namely, the odds ratio (OR) for each selected predictor variable were divided by the lowest common denominator and rounded off to the nearest half integer or nearest integer in several iterations to develop a simple score. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed for each iteration to ensure consistency in the area under the ROC curve, also known as the c-statistic [15,24].

Validation of the SIM score

The SIM score was validated using data from the independent validation cohort. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess discrimination power and calibration, wherein the requirement for emergency thoracotomy and/or laparotomy was designated as the dependent variable and the predictor variables of the SIM scale comprised the independent variables. Discrimination power was measured based on the c-statistic, and calibration was evaluated by the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test [15,24].

Next, the practicality of the SIM score to enable prediction of the need for surgical procedure in MVC patients was examined by comparing the SIM score-estimated probability of emergency surgery with the observed rate of thoracotomy and/or laparotomy performed within 24 hours after injury [15,24].

To assess if the validation was independent of the method of comparison between the expected and the observed rates, sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm the robustness of SIM score. The SIM scores were analysed by logistic regression and linear regression, along with ISS and transfusion within 24 hours after arrival, for primary and secondary outcomes.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive data are presented as mean ± SD, median (interquartile range), or number (%). Results were compared using unpaired t-tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, Chi-square tests, or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. All hypothesis testing considered a two-sided α threshold of 0.05 as statistically significant.

In the development cohorts, missing values were replaced with estimated values using a multiple imputation method, in which five sets of plausible values were calculated by linear regressions and then aggregated into estimated values. Variables that have considerable numbers of missing data (>10% of all cases) were not used as potential predictors to maintain the reliability of analyses [25,26]. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, variables were entered using the simultaneous method. Interactions between important predictor variables in the final models were analysed by including interaction terms in logistic regression models. Statistically significant interactions were determined with two-sided α < 0.01, while nonsignificant interactions were not subsequently used. Variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to assess multicollinearity, wherein VIF greater than 3 was considered statistically significant [27]. Any correlations between variables that were not used due to high number of missing data and predictors selected by the logistic model were examined using Pearson or Spearman correlation methods as appropriate to enhance the generalizability of the SIM score.

All statistical analyses were conducted using the SPSS version 24 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA).

Results

Patient characteristics

The patient flow diagram is summarised in Fig 1. Database screening identified 31,936 patients who had suffered from MVCs and presented to collaborating hospitals during the study period. Among them, 29,977 patients were aged ≥15 years, and 30,083 patients presented with measurable blood pressure at all participating centres. A total of 28,124 patients satisfied all the inclusion criteria, among whom 2,410 were excluded due to missing data on the type of surgery or the date of surgery, and 38 were excluded due to unknown date of injury; thus, 13,328 and 12,348 patients were allocated to the development and validation cohorts, respectively.

Fig 1

Patient flowchart.

A total of 31,986 patients who suffered from MVCs were identified, of whom 25,676 were included in the analyses. The development cohort comprised 13,328 patients (those who were injured between 2004 and 2012) and the validation cohort comprised 12,348 patients (those who were injured between 2013 and 2016). Abbreviations: MVC = motor vehicle crashes.

The demographic characteristics of patients in both cohorts are summarised in Table 1. Emergency thoracotomy or laparotomy was performed in 582 (4.4%) patients in the development cohort and in 484 (3.9%) in the validation cohort. While comparable number of patients underwent emergency hemostatic surgeries in both cohorts (1.1% vs 1.0%), the validation cohort had slightly more patients (4.1%) who had emergency hemostatic IVR compared to the development cohort (3.3%). The validation cohort also had more patients (94.6%) who survived to be discharged to either their homes or other healthcare facilities compared to the development cohort (91.9%); hospital-free days till day 90 were similar between cohorts. Of patients in both cohorts, about 30% suffered from motor vehicle collisions and approximately 15% required transfusion within 24 hours after hospital arrival. The median ISS was 14 in both cohorts.

Table 1

Characteristics of patients in development and validation cohorts.

		Development Cohort		Validation Cohort
n		13,328		12,348
Emergency thoracotomy or laparotomy, n(%)		582	(4.4%)	484	(3.9%)
	Emergency thoracotomy, n(%)	135	(1.0%)	80	(0.6%)
	Emergency laparotomy, n(%)	486	(3.6%)	427	(3.5%)
Emergency hemostatic surgery, n(%)		143	(1.1%)	122	(1.0%)
Emergency hemostatic IVR, n(%)		439	(3.3%)	506	(4.1%)
	Additional hemostatic IVR, n(%)	31	(0.2%)	40	(0.3%)
Survival to discharge, n(%)		11,435	(91.9%)	11,414	(94.6%)
missing data		884	(6.6%)	283	(2.3%)
Hospital-free days to day 90, days, median(IQR)		13	(29)	13	(26)
missing data		906	(6.8%)	289	(2.3%)
Age, years, median(IQR)		47	(38)	53	(39)
missing data		0	(0.0%)	0	(0.0%)
Sex, male, n(%)		9323	(70.0%)	8275	(67.0%)
missing data		1	(0.0%)	3	(0.0%)
Mechanism of injury, n(%)
	Motor vehicle collision	3795	(28.5%)	3957	(32.0%)
	Motorcycle collision	4522	(33.9%)	3602	(29.2%)
	Pedestrian-auto collision	2394	(18.0%)	2269	(18.4%)
	Bicycle collision	2509	(18.8%)	2406	(19.5%)
	Others	108	(0.8%)	114	(0.9%)
Vital signs upon hospital arrival
	GCS, median(IQR)	15	(2)	15	(1)
	missing data	413	(3.1%)	527	(4.3%)
	Respiratory rate, /min, median(IQR)	20	(7)	20	(6)
	missing data	980	(7.4%)	1024	(8.3%)
	Heart rate, /min, median(IQR)	84	(25)	82	(23)
	missing data	168	(1.3%)	97	(0.8%)
	Systolic blood pressure, mmHg, median(IQR)	132	(38)	136	(37)
	missing data	0	(0.0%)	0	(0.0%)
Transfusion within 24 hours after arrival, n(%)		2087	(15.9%)	1843	(15.1%)
missing data		222	(1.7%)	108	(0.9%)
ISS, median(IQR)		14	(15)	14	(13)
missing data		96	(0.7%)	183	(1.5%)

IQR = Interquartile Range, GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale, ISS = Injury Severity Score, IVR = Interventional Radiology

Score development

Using the development cohort, multivariate logistic regression models were constructed with nine potential predictors of emergency surgery in patients who suffered from MVCs. The potential predictors were selected only from variables that could be obtained without detailed examination such as radiographic imaging, considering the clinical applicability. Prehospital vital signs were not selected as potential predictors due to considerable number of missing data (3301 [24.8%] cases), while vital signs upon arrival were selected. Cases with missing values (1298 [9.7%]) on selected potential predictors were replaced with estimated values using multiple imputations. Among the potential predictors examined, six independent predictors, namely, age, MOI (motor vehicle collision) and vital signs upon hospital arrival including GCS, RR, HR and sBP, were identified as predictor variables (Table 2). As interactions between age and GCS, as well as sBP and GCS, RR and HR, were expected, the interaction terms for these factors were analysed in regression models; however, there was no significant interaction between the predictors as no interaction terms with p < 0.01 were detected. Further, no significant multicollinearity was identified among the six identified predictors. Significant correlations between each prehospital vital sign (sBP, RR, or HR) and one upon hospital arrival were detected (S1 Table).

Table 2

Multivariate analysis for potential predictors of emergency surgical intervention.

		Odds Ratio	95% CI	P value
Age, ≥80 years		1.46	1.06–2.01	0.02
Sex, male		1.17	0.96–1.43	0.12
Mode of injury
	Motor vehicle collision	6.28	4.31–9.14	<0.01
	Motorcycle collision	2.81	1.90–4.15	<0.01
	Pedestrian-auto collision	2.20	1.45–3.33	<0.01
Vital signs upon hospital arrival
	GCS, ≤13	1.57	1.30–1.91	<0.01
	RR, ≥22 /min	1.66	1.39–2.00	<0.01
	HR, ≥100 /min	2.00	1.66–2.41	<0.01
	sBP, <100 mmHg	4.97	4.16–5.94	<0.01

CI = Confidence interval, GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale, RR = respiratory rate, HR = heart rate, sBP = systolic blood pressure

Based on the ORs of six predictors, scores in the SIM score were derived using weighted averages. Until the scores of the final model were obtained after the second adjustment of ORs, the c-statistic remained unchanged (0.796 in unadjusted model vs. 0.795 in both first adjusted and final models). Accordingly, the final model of the grading index, SIM score, was developed as 0 to 9 scales (Table 3).

Table 3

SIM score.

	Score
Age ≥80 years	1
Motor vehicle collision	2
GCS ≤13 on arrival	1
RR ≥22 /min on arrival	1
HR ≥100 /min on arrival	1
sBP <100 mmHg on arrival	3

GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale, RR = respiratory rate, HR = heart rate, sBP = systolic blood pressure

Score validation

ROC curves for SIM scores using the validation cohort revealed enough discrimination power (c-statistic = 0.789; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.768–0.810; p < 0.01), and multivariate logistic regression also indicated good calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit p = 0.124).

The SIM score-based estimate of the requirement of emergency surgery and the corresponding observed value for each point in the score are provided in Fig 2. Both estimated and observed probability of the need for emergent thoracotomy and/or laparotomy gradually increased from 1% at a score ≤ 1 to approximately 10% at a score of 5 and to almost 40% at a score ≥ 8.

Fig 2

SIM score-estimated and observed probabilities of the requirement for emergency surgical intervention.

Both estimated and observed probabilities of the requirement for emergency surgical intervention including thoracotomy and/or laparotomy gradually increased from 1% at a SIM score ≤ 1 to approximately 10% at a SIM score of 5 and to almost 40% at a SIM score ≥ 8. The linear calibration plots at each point of the SIM score reveal the plausibility of the index.

To confirm that SIM score was independently associated with the need for emergent surgery, sensitivity analysis using multivariate logistic regression with SIM score and other clinical variables was performed, and the results show that validation was not dependent on the method of comparison between the expected and the observed mortality (OR = 1.40 for 1 point increase in SIM score; 95% CI = 1.33–1.48; p < 0.01; Table 4).

Table 4

Impact of SIM score in sensitivity and secondary outcome analyses.

	Odds Ratioa	95% CI	P value
Emergency surgery	1.40	1.33–1.48	<0.01
Emergency hemostatic surgery	1.19	1.08–1.31	<0.01
Emergency hemostatic IVR	0.98	0.93–1.03	0.41
Survival to discharge	0.81	0.77–0.86	<0.01
	Coefficients
Hospital-free days to day 90, daysb	0.41	−0.47–1.29	0.36

Multivariate logistic regression and multiple linear regression were used with adjustment for ISS and transfusion requirement within 24 hours after hospital arrival. CI = Confidence Interval, IVR = Interventional Radiology

aOdds Ratio for 1 point increase in SIM score

bdays increase for 1 point increase in SIM score

Analyses on secondary outcomes identified that requirement of emergency hemostatic surgery was also significantly associated with SIM scores (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.08–1.31; p <0.01; Table 4), as well as survival to discharge (OR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.77–0.86; p < 0.01; Table 4). Requirement of emergency hemostatic IVR and hospital-free days till day 90 were not associated with SIM scores.

Discussion

Here, we report on the development and validation of a novel and specific grading scale, the SIM score, for patients with MVC-related injury using independent cohorts. Notably, the SIM score could accurately predict the requirement for emergency surgery for victims of MVCs as a stepwise progression (linear calibration plots shown in Fig 2) with sufficient discriminatory power. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses and secondary outcome analyses revealed the relationship between SIM scores and the need for surgical intervention, as well as the requirement of emergency hemostatic surgery, indicating that the validation processes of SIM score were not dependent on the statistical approach used for comparison. Although an appropriate cut-off value for the SIM score would differ depending on the trauma system, it should be noted that less than 3 of the SIM score suggests < 5% of possibility of the need for emergency surgical intervention.

While well-developed trauma systems along with designated trauma centres have been validated to decrease mortality of severely injured patients [5,6,28], several challenges, such as fragmented distribution of surgeons and inappropriate patient allocation, were reported from regions with relatively immature trauma systems [29-31]. Although some scoring systems for severity of trauma patients, such as Revised Trauma Score and Probability of Survival determined by Trauma and Injury Severity Score, have been examined to develop a better triage algorithm that predicts emergency surgical intervention [18,19,32], the lower discrimination power at lower level trauma centres was identified and some of these systems failed to predict the requirement for emergency procedures including surgery [32-34]. Considering that the SIM score might independently predict the need for emergency thoracotomy and/or laparotomy regardless of injury severity (OR 1.40 for 1-point increase in SIM score; 95% CI = 1.33–1.48; Table 4), the SIM score can be implemented even in non-designated trauma centres to where patients with less severe injuries are transported, and would help deciding to transfer patients to other hospitals with surgical capabilities.

During the development phase of this study, we analysed the variables used in the existing severity scales or potential prognostic indicators that had been independently assessed in trauma patients [19-23]. Considering that this process satisfied pathophysiological plausibility and was predicated by previous studies, we believe that our novel scoring index can be adopted across trauma centres in different countries for the benefit of MVC victims and patients. It should also be noted that the SIM score was constructed utilising simple vital signs along with age and motor vehicle collisions as MOI, and therefore, would be a user-friendly scoring system.

The results of this study must be interpreted in the context of the study design. We only included patients who suffered from MVCs, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. However, as MVC is main cause of blunt injury across the world and penetrating injury has been validated to be a robust predictor for emergency procedures [1,2,4,34,35], we believe that the SIM score would be practical and applicable in most regions.

Another limitation is the fact that prehospital vital signs were not incorporated into the initial regression model as potential predictors due to high number of missing data. As the vital sings upon hospital arrival are not always similar to prehospital measurements made at the scene of injury, this might gravely affect the validity of the SIM score to use as a prehospital triage algorithm. Although the significant correlations between prehospital vital signs and those upon hospital arrival were identified, the SIM score would only holds promise for the effective determination of early transfer or activation of surgical subspecialties after hospital arrival until the score is externally validated with other data sets in future studies.

Furthermore, we defined several variables as emergency procedures when they were performed within 24 hours after hospital arrival. As patients who needed surgical intervention several hours after arrival might not have had fatal haemorrhage, the SIM score would not exclusively predict immediate hemostatic intervention for exsanguinating injury. Whether the SIM score would predict the need for resuscitative hemostatic procedure, as well as whether applying the score would introduce favorable clinical outcome, should be further examined.

Finally, because this is a retrospective study, the results are not conclusive. Residual cofounding and unmeasured predictors for surgical intervention, such as fluid resuscitation and responsiveness, duration from injury to hospital arrival and medications administered prior to hospital arrival, are impediments that prevent confirming an association between SIM score and the requirement for emergency surgical interventions. Although we have validated the SIM score with multiple analyses in the validation cohort, additional clinical investigations, including a prospective observational study, must be conducted to validate our findings.

In conclusion, SIM score was developed and validated as a novel scoring system for predicting the requirement for emergency surgical interventions. The SIM score is a user-friendly grading index that could effectively estimate the need for emergency thoracotomy and/or laparotomy as a stepwise progression.

Correlations between vital signs at prehospital and upon hospital arrival.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

14 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-24717

A novel scoring system to predict the requirement for surgical intervention in victims of motor vehicle crashes: Development and validation using independent cohorts

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. YAMAMOTO,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 29 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Itamar Ashkenazi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS journals require authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction at the time of publication. When specific legal or ethical requirements prohibit public sharing of a dataset, authors must indicate how researchers may obtain access to the data. PLOS journals will not consider manuscripts for which the following factors influence ability to share data:

- Authors will not share data because of personal interests, such as patents or potential future publications.

- The conclusions depend solely on the analysis of proprietary data, whether these data are owned by the authors, by their funders or institutions, or by other parties.

Therefore, please update your Data Availability statement to indicate how other researchers may gain access to the underlying data reported in the manuscript. For more information, please see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement:

"All collaborating hospitals obtained individual local institutional review board approval for the Conduct of Human Research before initiating the study (approval number: 20090087 at Keio University School of Medicine).".

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Author,

Three very experienced and distinguished trauma physicians reviewed your manuscript. Their recommendations on whether to accept or not to accept this manuscript for publication were far from being homogenous. Attached to this letter below, you will find their comments that need to be addressed. Among the criticism raised, there is one major limitation I wish to discuss. The score significantly relies on data that was measured upon admission of the patients to the emergency department (3 of 6 variables accounting for 6 of 9 potential points). You were forced to make this decision since prehospital vital-signs were missing in many of your study subjects. This gravely affects the validity of your results. One cannot assume that the measurements upon admission to the hospital are similar to prehospital measurements made at the scene of injury. Since the score aims to guide the prehospital team as to where to transport the trauma victim, this deficiency is of utmost importance. Still, it does not rule out this study. This deficit, however, should be discussed thoroughly as a limitation at the appropriate place within the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Itamar Ashkenazi, Academic Editor

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: the authors have attempted to create a prehospital score that will help predict who needs "emergency surgery" using data from a registry. I understand the need, and agree, however I have several significant concerns.

1. emergency surgery is broader than thoracotomy or laparotomy. For instance why isnt major vascular repair or craineotomy considered emergency surgery?

2. the use of 24 hours to define multiple time points in the paper is a major problem. It likely springs from using a registry, and times within 60 minutes of arrival may not be available. emergency surgery performed 18 hours after injury is likely not important to survival. These times after injury have been explored by multiple authors.

3. the lack of prehospital vital signs in a prehospital score is really an issue.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for submitting you score derivation study. The methodology and sample size calculation are noted. The grammar is generally good - there are minor English errors that do not really detract from the message. The statistical analysis seems in order and the message is clear - the predicted and actual rates were clearly similar.

This is a good study and results in a practical score that should now be externally validated.

Reviewer #3: This is an interesting study which probably has some local relevance. The broader issue is whether this score will be helpful. Clearly at present trauma patients are taken to hospitals without surgical capabilities. This is hardly every appropriate and I presume this happens because the prehospital resources do not have the capability to take trauma patients to hospitals with surgical capabilities. In that context, will knowing that they are more likely to need surgery be helpful?

Some specific comments are

Language such as "trauma care should imbibe the philosophy of hemostasis" might be appropriate in a novel but is probably too flowery for a scientific paper

The outcome measure used (which is a good one) is usually described as "days alive and out of hospital (DAOH)

Why was 80yo chosen as the cut score for age

Is it helpful to use vital signs on arrival when clearly it would be better if the patients did not arrive at hospitals without surgical capability. If poor or missing data is an issue in relation to prehospital vital signs would that not be an important issue to address?

It looks like the likelihood of needing surgery is 5% with a score of 3, 7.5% with 4, 15% with 5, 20% with 6, 25% with 7 and 40% with 8. What is the cut point which the authors feel justifies transport to a surgical facility?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

19 Nov 2019

Editor

Author Response: Thank you and your reviewers for the insightful comments and the opportunity to resubmit our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript following your comments. Please see our specific responses below.

1. The score significantly relies on data that was measured upon admission of the patients to the emergency department (3 of 6 variables accounting for 6 of 9 potential points). You were forced to make this decision since prehospital vital-signs were missing in many of your study subjects. This gravely affects the validity of your results. One cannot assume that the measurements upon admission to the hospital are similar to prehospital measurements made at the scene of injury. Since the score aims to guide the prehospital team as to where to transport the trauma victim, this deficiency is of utmost importance. Still, it does not rule out this study. This deficit, however, should be discussed thoroughly as a limitation at the appropriate place within the manuscript.

Author Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We agree with your comments that not including prehospital vital signs would be a significant limitation. To clarify this limitation, the text in lines 334-340 in p.21 in Discussion have been revised to the following:

“Another limitation is the fact that prehospital vital signs were not incorporated into the initial regression model as potential predictors due to high number of missing data. As the vital sings upon hospital arrival are not always similar to prehospital measurements made at the scene of injury, this might gravely affect the validity of the SIM score to use as a prehospital triage algorithm. Although the significant correlations between prehospital vital signs and those upon hospital arrival were identified, the SIM score would only holds promise for the effective determination of early transfer or activation of surgical subspecialties after hospital arrival until the score is externally validated with other data sets in future studies.”

Reviewer 1

Author Response: Thank you for your attention to detail and requests for clarification. We are grateful for your insightful comments and the valuable suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript following your comments. Please see our specific responses below.

1. Emergency surgery is broader than thoracotomy or laparotomy. For instance why isn’t major vascular repair or craniotomy considered emergency surgery?

Author Response: Thank you for pointing this out to us. Our writing was unclear. We didn’t consider craniotomy and vascular repair as emergency surgical intervention because some anatomic and physiologic criteria, such as Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and massive bleeding and/or distal circulatory deficit in extremities have been reported to be able to predict the need for such surgical interventions in previous studies. We added the references and the text have been revised to the following:

In line 66 in p.4 in Introduction, “Although several triage algorithms using mechanism of injury (MOI) and/or anatomic and physiologic criteria successfully identified patients who needed treatment at high-level trauma centres [11-13], they have not been validated to predict the need for emergency surgical intervention, particularly for laparotomy and thoracotomy.”

In lines 106-110 in p.6 in Methods, “Craniotomy and vascular surgery in extremities were not included as the emergency surgical intervention in this study because some anatomic and physiologic criteria, such as Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and massive bleeding and/or distal circulatory deficit in extremities have been reported to be able to predict the need for such surgical interventions [16,17].”

2. The use of 24 hours to define multiple time points in the paper is a major problem. It likely springs from using a registry, and times within 60 minutes of arrival may not be available. emergency surgery performed 18 hours after injury is likely not important to survival. These times after injury have been explored by multiple authors

Author Response: Thank you for this important feedback. We agree with your comments and understand that the SIM score would not exclusively predict immediate hemostatic intervention for exsanguinating injury and would not be associated with clinical outcomes. To clarify this limitation, we added a paragraph in lines 341-347 in pp.21-22 in Discussion as follows:

“Furthermore, we defined several variables as emergency procedures when they were performed within 24 hours after hospital arrival. As patients who needed surgical intervention several hours after arrival might not have had fatal haemorrhage, the SIM score would not exclusively predict immediate hemostatic intervention for exsanguinating injury. Whether the SIM score would predict the need for resuscitative hemostatic procedure, as well as whether applying the score would introduce favorable clinical outcome, should be further examined.”

3. The lack of prehospital vital signs in a prehospital score is really an issue.

Author Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We agree with your comments that not including prehospital vital signs would be a significant limitation. To clarify this limitation, the text in lines 334-340 in p.21 in Discussion have been revised to the following:

“Another limitation is the fact that prehospital vital signs were not incorporated into the initial regression model as potential predictors due to high number of missing data. As the vital sings upon hospital arrival are not always similar to prehospital measurements made at the scene of injury, this might gravely affect the validity of the SIM score to use as a prehospital triage algorithm. Although the significant correlations between prehospital vital signs and those upon hospital arrival were identified, the SIM score would only holds promise for the effective determination of early transfer or activation of surgical subspecialties after hospital arrival until the score is externally validated with other data sets in future studies.”

Reviewer 2

Author Response: We are grateful for your comments on our manuscript. We will validate the SIM score externally using other dataset in a future study.

Reviewer 3

Author Response: Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript and requests for clarification. We have revised the manuscript following your comments. Please see our specific responses below.

1. The broader issue is whether this score will be helpful. Clearly at present trauma patients are taken to hospitals without surgical capabilities. This is hardly every appropriate and I presume this happens because the prehospital resources do not have the capability to take trauma patients to hospitals with surgical capabilities. In that context, will knowing that they are more likely to need surgery be helpful?

Author Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We think the score needs to be externally validated to use as a prehospital triage algorithm, particularly outside the study setting. To clarify that the current study would only conclude the SIM score would help deciding to transfer patients to other hospitals with surgical capabilities, the text in Discussion have been revised to the following:

In lines 316-317 in p.20, “the SIM score can be implemented even in non-designated trauma centres to where patients with less severe injuries are transported, and would help deciding to transfer patients to other hospitals with surgical capabilities.”

In lines 337-340 in p.21, “the SIM score would only holds promise for the effective determination of early transfer or activation of surgical subspecialties after hospital arrival until the score is externally validated with other data sets in future studies.”

2. Language such as "trauma care should imbibe the philosophy of hemostasis" might be appropriate in a novel but is probably too flowery for a scientific paper.

Author Response: Thank you, this has been corrected as follows.

In line 60 in p.4 in Introduction, “Considering that timely surgical interventions improve outcomes for trauma victims following MVCs, the strategy for trauma care should include early hemostasis, decontamination of peritoneal infection, and early control of digestive fluid leakage, particularly outside the well-designed trauma system or designated trauma centres.”

3. The outcome measure used (which is a good one) is usually described as "days alive and out of hospital (DAOH).

Author Response: Thank you for pointing this out to us. After discussing among authors, we decided to use “hospital-free days”. However, we added “days alive and out of hospital” to explain the hospital free days. The text was added in line 120 in p.7 in Methods as follows:

“The primary outcome was the requirement of emergency surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency hemostatic surgery, emergency hemostatic IVR, survival to discharge, and hospital-free days, also known as days alive and out of hospital, till day 90 after injury (combination of in-hospital death and length of hospital stay defined as the number of days alive and out of the hospital).”

4. Why was 80yo chosen as the cut score for age?

Author Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We used the cut-off to define “old-old” elderly population because some previous studies suggested old-old patients aged ≥80 years had different outcomes. We added a reference (#23) in line 145 in p.8 in Methods as follows:

“Owing to clinical plausibility and practicality, age and vital signs were transformed to binary variables as follows: age (< 80 or ≥80 years) [23], GCS(≤13 or ≥14), systolic blood pressure (sBP; <110 or ≥110 mmHg) [22], heart rate (HR; <100 or ≥100 bpm), respiratory rate (RR; <22 or ≥22 /min).”

5. Is it helpful to use vital signs on arrival when clearly it would be better if the patients did not arrive at hospitals without surgical capability. If poor or missing data is an issue in relation to prehospital vital signs would that not be an important issue to address?

Author Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We agree with your comments that not including prehospital vital signs would be a significant limitation. To clarify this limitation, the text in lines 334-340 in p.21 in Discussion have been revised to the following:

“Another limitation is the fact that prehospital vital signs were not incorporated into the initial regression model as potential predictors due to high number of missing data. As the vital sings upon hospital arrival are not always similar to prehospital measurements made at the scene of injury, this might gravely affect the validity of the SIM score to use as a prehospital triage algorithm. Although the significant correlations between prehospital vital signs and those upon hospital arrival were identified, the SIM score would only holds promise for the effective determination of early transfer or activation of surgical subspecialties after hospital arrival until the score is externally validated with other data sets in future studies.”

6. It looks like the likelihood of needing surgery is 5% with a score of 3, 7.5% with 4, 15% with 5, 20% with 6, 25% with 7 and 40% with 8. What is the cut point which the authors feel justifies transport to a surgical facility?

Author Response: Thank you for your thoughts about this important component of our manuscript. Although an appropriate cut-off value for the SIM score would differ depending on the trauma system, we believe 3 would be low enough cut-off value because it suggests < 5% of possibility of the need for emergency surgical intervention. We added sentences in lines 300-302 in p.19 in Discussion as follows:

“Although an appropriate cut-off value for the SIM score would differ depending on the trauma system, it should be noted that less than 3 of the SIM score suggests < 5% of possibility of the need for emergency surgical intervention.”

Submitted filename: MVC_SIM_response_RY111619.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Nov 2019

A novel scoring system to predict the requirement for surgical intervention in victims of motor vehicle crashes: Development and validation using independent cohorts

PONE-D-19-24717R1

Dear Dr. YAMAMOTO,

Thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments.

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Itamar Ashkenazi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

2 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-24717R1

A novel scoring system to predict the requirement for surgical intervention in victims of motor vehicle crashes: Development and validation using independent cohorts

Dear Dr. YAMAMOTO:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Itamar Ashkenazi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE