T Osler1, S P Baker, W Long. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington 05405, USA. turner.osler@vtmednet.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Injury Severity Score (ISS) has served as the standard summary measure of anatomic injury for more than 20 years. Nevertheless, the ISS has an idiosyncrasy that both impairs its predictive power and complicates its calculation. We present here a simple modification of the ISS called the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), which significantly outperforms the venerable but dated ISS as a predictor of mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective calculation of NISS and comparison of NISS with prospectively calculated ISS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NISS is defined as the sum of the squares of the Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of each of a patient's three most severe Abbreviated Injury Scale injuries regardless of the body region in which they occur. NISS values were calculated for every patient in two large independent data sets: 3,136 patients treated during a 4-year period at the American College of Surgeons' Level I trauma center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and 3,449 patients treated during a 4-year period at the American College of Surgeons' Level I trauma center at the Emanuel Hospital in Portland, Oregon. The power of NISS to predict mortality was then compared with previously calculated ISS values for the same patients in each of the two data sets. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We find that NISS is not only simple to calculate but more predictive of survival as well (Albuquerque: receiver operating characteristic (ROC) ISS = 0.869, ROC NISS = 0.896, p < 0.001; Portland: ROC ISS = 0.896, ROC NISS = 0.907,p < 0.004). Moreover, NISS provides a better fit throughout its entire range of prediction (Hosmer Lemeshow statistic for Albuquerque ISS = 29.12, NISS = 8.88; Hosmer Lemeshow statistic for Portland ISS = 83.48, NISS = 19.86). CONCLUSION: NISS should replace ISS as the standard summary measure of human trauma.
OBJECTIVES: The Injury Severity Score (ISS) has served as the standard summary measure of anatomic injury for more than 20 years. Nevertheless, the ISS has an idiosyncrasy that both impairs its predictive power and complicates its calculation. We present here a simple modification of the ISS called the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), which significantly outperforms the venerable but dated ISS as a predictor of mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective calculation of NISS and comparison of NISS with prospectively calculated ISS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NISS is defined as the sum of the squares of the Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of each of a patient's three most severe Abbreviated Injury Scale injuries regardless of the body region in which they occur. NISS values were calculated for every patient in two large independent data sets: 3,136 patients treated during a 4-year period at the American College of Surgeons' Level I trauma center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and 3,449 patients treated during a 4-year period at the American College of Surgeons' Level I trauma center at the Emanuel Hospital in Portland, Oregon. The power of NISS to predict mortality was then compared with previously calculated ISS values for the same patients in each of the two data sets. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We find that NISS is not only simple to calculate but more predictive of survival as well (Albuquerque: receiver operating characteristic (ROC) ISS = 0.869, ROC NISS = 0.896, p < 0.001; Portland: ROC ISS = 0.896, ROC NISS = 0.907,p < 0.004). Moreover, NISS provides a better fit throughout its entire range of prediction (Hosmer Lemeshow statistic for Albuquerque ISS = 29.12, NISS = 8.88; Hosmer Lemeshow statistic for Portland ISS = 83.48, NISS = 19.86). CONCLUSION: NISS should replace ISS as the standard summary measure of humantrauma.
Authors: Raquel C Gardner; James F Burke; Jasmine Nettiksimmons; Sam Goldman; Caroline M Tanner; Kristine Yaffe Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Hunter B Moore; Ernest E Moore; Michael P Chapman; Kevin McVaney; Gary Bryskiewicz; Robert Blechar; Theresa Chin; Clay Cothren Burlew; Fredric Pieracci; F Bernadette West; Courtney D Fleming; Arsen Ghasabyan; James Chandler; Christopher C Silliman; Anirban Banerjee; Angela Sauaia Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hans-Christoph Pape; Dieter Rixen; John Morley; Elisabeth Ellingsen Husebye; Michael Mueller; Clemens Dumont; Andreas Gruner; Hans Joerg Oestern; Michael Bayeff-Filoff; Christina Garving; Dustin Pardini; Martijn van Griensven; Christian Krettek; Peter Giannoudis Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 12.969
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
Authors: M Kit Delgado; Michael A Yokell; Kristan L Staudenmayer; David A Spain; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; N Ewen Wang Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Myron F Weiner; Gloria L Vega; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia; Carol Moore; Christopher Madden; Anne Hudak; Dieter Lütjohann Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.311