A Comparison of the Predictive Value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Kampala Trauma Score for Mortality and Length of Hospital Stay in Head Injury Patients at a Tertiary Hospital in Uganda: A Diagnostic Prospective Study.

Surgery Research and Practice Pub Date : 2020-10-13 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2020/1362741
Herbert Ariaka, Joel Kiryabwire, Ssenyonjo Hussein, Alfred Ogwal, Emmanuel Nkonge, Felix Oyania
{"title":"A Comparison of the Predictive Value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Kampala Trauma Score for Mortality and Length of Hospital Stay in Head Injury Patients at a Tertiary Hospital in Uganda: A Diagnostic Prospective Study.","authors":"Herbert Ariaka,&nbsp;Joel Kiryabwire,&nbsp;Ssenyonjo Hussein,&nbsp;Alfred Ogwal,&nbsp;Emmanuel Nkonge,&nbsp;Felix Oyania","doi":"10.1155/2020/1362741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The prevalence rates of head injury have been shown to be as high as 25% among trauma patients with severe head injury contributing to about 31% of all trauma deaths. Triage utilizes numerical cutoff points along the scores continuum to predict the greatest number of people who would have a poor outcome, \"severe\" patients, when scoring below the threshold and a good outcome \"non severe\" patients, when scoring above the cutoff or numerical threshold. This study aimed to compare the predictive value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Kampala Trauma Score for mortality and length of hospital stay at a tertiary hospital in Uganda.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A diagnostic prospective study was conducted from January 12, 2018 to March 16, 2018. We recruited patients with head injury admitted to the accidents and emergency department who met the inclusion criteria for the study. Data on patient's demographic characteristics, mechanisms of injury, category of road use, and classification of injury according to the GCS and KTS at initial contact and at 24 hours were collected. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis and logistic regression analysis were used for comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The GCS predicted mortality and length of hospital stay with the GCS at admission with AUC of 0.9048 and 0.7972, respectively (KTS at admission time, AUC 0.8178 and 0.7243). The GCS predicted mortality and length of hospital stay with the GCS at 24 hours with AUC of 0.9567 and 0.8203, respectively (KTS at 24 hours, AUC 0.8531 and 0.7276). At admission, the GCS at a cutoff of 11 had a sensitivity of 83.23% and specificity of 82.61% while the KTS had 88.02% and 73.91%, respectively, at a cutoff of 13 for predicting mortality. At admission, the GCS at a cutoff of 13 had sensitivity of 70.48% and specificity of 66.67% while the KTS had 68.07% and 62.50%, respectively, at a cutoff of 14 for predicting length of hospital stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comparatively, the GCS performed better than the KTS in predicting mortality and length of hospital stay. The GCS was also more accurate at labelling the head injury patients who died as severely injured as opposed to the KTS that categorized most of them as moderately injured. In general, the two scores were sensitive at detection of mortality and length of hospital stay among the study population.</p>","PeriodicalId":30584,"journal":{"name":"Surgery Research and Practice","volume":"2020 ","pages":"1362741"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/1362741","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1362741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Introduction: The prevalence rates of head injury have been shown to be as high as 25% among trauma patients with severe head injury contributing to about 31% of all trauma deaths. Triage utilizes numerical cutoff points along the scores continuum to predict the greatest number of people who would have a poor outcome, "severe" patients, when scoring below the threshold and a good outcome "non severe" patients, when scoring above the cutoff or numerical threshold. This study aimed to compare the predictive value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Kampala Trauma Score for mortality and length of hospital stay at a tertiary hospital in Uganda.

Methods: A diagnostic prospective study was conducted from January 12, 2018 to March 16, 2018. We recruited patients with head injury admitted to the accidents and emergency department who met the inclusion criteria for the study. Data on patient's demographic characteristics, mechanisms of injury, category of road use, and classification of injury according to the GCS and KTS at initial contact and at 24 hours were collected. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis and logistic regression analysis were used for comparison.

Results: The GCS predicted mortality and length of hospital stay with the GCS at admission with AUC of 0.9048 and 0.7972, respectively (KTS at admission time, AUC 0.8178 and 0.7243). The GCS predicted mortality and length of hospital stay with the GCS at 24 hours with AUC of 0.9567 and 0.8203, respectively (KTS at 24 hours, AUC 0.8531 and 0.7276). At admission, the GCS at a cutoff of 11 had a sensitivity of 83.23% and specificity of 82.61% while the KTS had 88.02% and 73.91%, respectively, at a cutoff of 13 for predicting mortality. At admission, the GCS at a cutoff of 13 had sensitivity of 70.48% and specificity of 66.67% while the KTS had 68.07% and 62.50%, respectively, at a cutoff of 14 for predicting length of hospital stay.

Conclusion: Comparatively, the GCS performed better than the KTS in predicting mortality and length of hospital stay. The GCS was also more accurate at labelling the head injury patients who died as severely injured as opposed to the KTS that categorized most of them as moderately injured. In general, the two scores were sensitive at detection of mortality and length of hospital stay among the study population.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

格拉斯哥昏迷量表和坎帕拉创伤评分对乌干达三级医院头部损伤患者死亡率和住院时间预测价值的比较:一项诊断性前瞻性研究。
在严重颅脑损伤的创伤患者中,颅脑损伤的患病率高达25%,约占所有创伤死亡的31%。分诊分类利用分数连续体上的数字截止点来预测得分低于阈值时结果较差的“严重”患者和得分高于阈值或数值阈值时结果较好的“非严重”患者的最大人数。本研究旨在比较格拉斯哥昏迷量表和坎帕拉创伤评分对乌干达三级医院死亡率和住院时间的预测价值。方法:2018年1月12日至2018年3月16日进行诊断性前瞻性研究。我们招募了在事故和急诊科住院的符合研究纳入标准的头部损伤患者。收集患者的人口学特征、损伤机制、道路使用类别以及初次接触时和24小时内根据GCS和KTS进行的损伤分类的数据。采用受试者工作特征(ROC)分析和logistic回归分析进行比较。结果:入院时GCS预测死亡率和住院时间,AUC分别为0.9048和0.7972(入院时KTS, AUC分别为0.8178和0.7243)。GCS在24小时预测死亡率和住院时间,AUC分别为0.9567和0.8203 (KTS在24小时,AUC为0.8531和0.7276)。入院时,GCS在临界值为11时预测死亡率的敏感性为83.23%,特异性为82.61%,而KTS在临界值为13时预测死亡率的敏感性为88.02%,特异性为73.91%。入院时,GCS在截断值为13时预测住院时间的敏感性为70.48%,特异性为66.67%,而KTS在截断值为14时预测住院时间的敏感性为68.07%,特异性为62.50%。结论:相对而言,GCS在预测死亡率和住院时间方面优于KTS。GCS在将死亡的头部损伤患者归类为严重损伤方面也比KTS更准确,后者将大多数患者归类为中度损伤。总的来说,这两个评分在检测研究人群的死亡率和住院时间方面是敏感的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Surgery Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for surgeons and the surgical research community. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on clinical and laboratory research relevant to surgical practice and teaching, with an emphasis on findings directly affecting surgical management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信