A comparison between modified early warning score, worthing physiological scoring system, national early warning score, and rapid emergency medicine score in predicting inhospital mortality in multiple trauma patients

IF 0.3 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
Farhad Heydari, Saeed Majidinejad, Ahmadreza Ahmadi, Mohammad Nasr-Esfahani, Hossein Shayannejad, Nedaollsadat Fatemi
{"title":"A comparison between modified early warning score, worthing physiological scoring system, national early warning score, and rapid emergency medicine score in predicting inhospital mortality in multiple trauma patients","authors":"Farhad Heydari, Saeed Majidinejad, Ahmadreza Ahmadi, Mohammad Nasr-Esfahani, Hossein Shayannejad, Nedaollsadat Fatemi","doi":"10.4103/atr.atr_31_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Objectives: Physiological scoring systems could potentially aid emergency department (ED) trauma triage, and allowed clinicians to focus on treating the most severe patients first. This study aims to compare Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Worthing Physiological Scoring System (WPSS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) in predicting inhospital mortality for multiple trauma patients. Methods: This prospective descriptive study was performed on adult multiple trauma patients referred to the ED of Al-Zahra and Kashani hospitals, Isfahan, Iran during 2019-2020. The primary outcome was inhospital mortality. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate and compare the performances of four scores. Results: Of the 771 patients included in this study, 738 patients (95.7%) survived after 24 h of admission. The mean age of patients was 38.66 ± 18.67 years, and the majority of patients were male (79.1%). To predict inhospital mortality, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of REMS, MEWS, NEWS, WPSS, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were 0.944, 0.889, 0.768, 0.754, and 0.869, respectively. Results showed that REMS was more successful than other scores in predicting in-hospital mortality for multiple trauma patients. AUC of REMS was significantly better than NEWS, WPSS, and ISS in predicting inhospital mortality. Conclusions: The findings of this study reveal that REMS is an excellent predictor of in-hospital mortality and MEWS, NEWS, WPSS, and ISS are good predictors of in-hospital mortality.","PeriodicalId":45486,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Trauma Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Trauma Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/atr.atr_31_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Physiological scoring systems could potentially aid emergency department (ED) trauma triage, and allowed clinicians to focus on treating the most severe patients first. This study aims to compare Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Worthing Physiological Scoring System (WPSS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) in predicting inhospital mortality for multiple trauma patients. Methods: This prospective descriptive study was performed on adult multiple trauma patients referred to the ED of Al-Zahra and Kashani hospitals, Isfahan, Iran during 2019-2020. The primary outcome was inhospital mortality. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate and compare the performances of four scores. Results: Of the 771 patients included in this study, 738 patients (95.7%) survived after 24 h of admission. The mean age of patients was 38.66 ± 18.67 years, and the majority of patients were male (79.1%). To predict inhospital mortality, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of REMS, MEWS, NEWS, WPSS, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were 0.944, 0.889, 0.768, 0.754, and 0.869, respectively. Results showed that REMS was more successful than other scores in predicting in-hospital mortality for multiple trauma patients. AUC of REMS was significantly better than NEWS, WPSS, and ISS in predicting inhospital mortality. Conclusions: The findings of this study reveal that REMS is an excellent predictor of in-hospital mortality and MEWS, NEWS, WPSS, and ISS are good predictors of in-hospital mortality.
改良早期预警评分、有价值生理评分系统、国家早期预警评分和快速急诊医学评分预测多发性创伤患者住院死亡率的比较
背景和目的:生理评分系统可能有助于急诊科创伤分诊,并使临床医生能够首先专注于治疗最严重的患者。本研究旨在比较改良预警评分(MEWS)、Worthing生理评分系统(WPSS)、国家预警评分(NEWS)和快速急诊医学评分(REMS)在预测多发性创伤患者住院死亡率方面的作用。方法:这项前瞻性描述性研究是对2019-2020年期间转诊至伊朗伊斯法罕Al-Zahra和Kashani医院急诊科的成年多发性创伤患者进行的。主要结果是住院死亡率。受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线分析用于评估和比较四个评分的表现。结果:在纳入本研究的771名患者中,738名患者(95.7%)在入院24小时后存活。患者的平均年龄为38.66±18.67岁,大多数患者为男性(79.1%)。为了预测住院死亡率,REMS、MEWS、NEWS、WPSS和损伤严重程度评分(ISS)的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.944、0.889、0.768、0.754和0.869。结果表明,REMS在预测多发性创伤患者住院死亡率方面比其他评分更成功。REMS的AUC在预测住院死亡率方面显著优于NEWS、WPSS和ISS。结论:本研究结果表明,REMS是一个很好的住院死亡率预测指标,而MEWS、NEWS、WPSS和ISS是很好的医院死亡率预测指标。
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
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in all fields related to trauma or injury. Archives of Trauma Research is an authentic clinical journal, which is devoted to the particular compilation of the latest worldwide and interdisciplinary approach and findings, including original manuscripts, meta-analyses and reviews, health economic papers, debates, and consensus statements of clinical relevant to the trauma and injury field. Readers are generally specialists in the fields of general surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, plastic and reconstructive surgery, or any other related fields of basic and clinical sciences..
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信