预测急诊科交通相关多重创伤患者死亡率的创伤评分系统比较。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Murtaza Kaya, Harun Yildirim, Mehmet Toprak, Mehmed Ulu
{"title":"预测急诊科交通相关多重创伤患者死亡率的创伤评分系统比较。","authors":"Murtaza Kaya, Harun Yildirim, Mehmet Toprak, Mehmed Ulu","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics15121563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> Trauma scoring systems are essential tools for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with multiple injuries. This study aimed to compare the performance of various anatomical and physiological scoring systems in predicting mortality among patients admitted to the emergency department following traffic accidents. <b>Methods:</b> In this prospective observational study, trauma patients presenting with traffic-related injuries were evaluated using seven scoring systems: ISS, NISS, AIS, GCS, RTS, TRISS, and APACHE II. Demographic data, clinical findings, and laboratory values were recorded. The prognostic performance of each score was assessed using ROC curve analysis, and diagnostic metrics including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated. <b>Results:</b> Among 554 patients included in the study, the overall mortality rate was 2%. The TRISS and GCS scores demonstrated the highest predictive performance, each with an AUC of 0.98, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity exceeding 93%. APACHE II followed closely with an AUC of 0.97, also achieving 100% sensitivity. NISS (AUC = 0.92) and ISS (AUC = 0.91) were effective anatomical scores, while RTS showed moderate predictive value (AUC = 0.90). Strong correlations were noted between ISS, NISS, and AIS (Rho > 0.85), while RTS was negatively correlated with these anatomical scores. All scoring systems showed statistically significant associations with mortality. <b>Conclusions:</b> TRISS, GCS, and APACHE II were the most effective trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality among emergency department patients. While complex models offer higher accuracy, simpler scores such as RTS and GCS remain valuable for rapid triage. The integration of both anatomical and physiological parameters may enhance early risk stratification and support timely decision-making in trauma care.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"15 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12191742/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Trauma Scoring Systems for Predicting Mortality in Emergency Department Patients with Traffic-Related Multiple Trauma.\",\"authors\":\"Murtaza Kaya, Harun Yildirim, Mehmet Toprak, Mehmed Ulu\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/diagnostics15121563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> Trauma scoring systems are essential tools for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with multiple injuries. This study aimed to compare the performance of various anatomical and physiological scoring systems in predicting mortality among patients admitted to the emergency department following traffic accidents. <b>Methods:</b> In this prospective observational study, trauma patients presenting with traffic-related injuries were evaluated using seven scoring systems: ISS, NISS, AIS, GCS, RTS, TRISS, and APACHE II. Demographic data, clinical findings, and laboratory values were recorded. The prognostic performance of each score was assessed using ROC curve analysis, and diagnostic metrics including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated. <b>Results:</b> Among 554 patients included in the study, the overall mortality rate was 2%. The TRISS and GCS scores demonstrated the highest predictive performance, each with an AUC of 0.98, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity exceeding 93%. APACHE II followed closely with an AUC of 0.97, also achieving 100% sensitivity. NISS (AUC = 0.92) and ISS (AUC = 0.91) were effective anatomical scores, while RTS showed moderate predictive value (AUC = 0.90). Strong correlations were noted between ISS, NISS, and AIS (Rho > 0.85), while RTS was negatively correlated with these anatomical scores. All scoring systems showed statistically significant associations with mortality. <b>Conclusions:</b> TRISS, GCS, and APACHE II were the most effective trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality among emergency department patients. While complex models offer higher accuracy, simpler scores such as RTS and GCS remain valuable for rapid triage. The integration of both anatomical and physiological parameters may enhance early risk stratification and support timely decision-making in trauma care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostics\",\"volume\":\"15 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12191742/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15121563\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15121563","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:创伤评分系统是预测多发损伤患者临床预后的重要工具。本研究旨在比较各种解剖和生理评分系统在预测交通事故后急诊科入院患者死亡率方面的表现。方法:在这项前瞻性观察研究中,采用7种评分系统对出现交通相关损伤的创伤患者进行评估:ISS、NISS、AIS、GCS、RTS、TRISS和APACHE II。记录人口统计数据、临床表现和实验室值。采用ROC曲线分析评估各评分的预后表现,并计算诊断指标,包括敏感性、特异性和似然比。结果:纳入研究的554例患者中,总死亡率为2%。TRISS和GCS评分表现出最高的预测性能,其AUC均为0.98,灵敏度为100%,特异性超过93%。APACHE II紧随其后,AUC为0.97,同样达到100%的灵敏度。NISS (AUC = 0.92)和ISS (AUC = 0.91)是有效的解剖学评分,而RTS具有中等预测价值(AUC = 0.90)。ISS、NISS和AIS之间存在很强的相关性(Rho > 0.85),而RTS与这些解剖学评分呈负相关。所有评分系统均显示与死亡率有统计学意义的关联。结论:TRISS、GCS和APACHE II是预测急诊科患者死亡率最有效的创伤评分系统。虽然复杂的模型提供更高的准确性,但简单的分数,如RTS和GCS,对于快速分类仍然有价值。解剖和生理参数的整合可以增强早期风险分层,并支持创伤护理的及时决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Trauma Scoring Systems for Predicting Mortality in Emergency Department Patients with Traffic-Related Multiple Trauma.

Background/Objectives: Trauma scoring systems are essential tools for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with multiple injuries. This study aimed to compare the performance of various anatomical and physiological scoring systems in predicting mortality among patients admitted to the emergency department following traffic accidents. Methods: In this prospective observational study, trauma patients presenting with traffic-related injuries were evaluated using seven scoring systems: ISS, NISS, AIS, GCS, RTS, TRISS, and APACHE II. Demographic data, clinical findings, and laboratory values were recorded. The prognostic performance of each score was assessed using ROC curve analysis, and diagnostic metrics including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated. Results: Among 554 patients included in the study, the overall mortality rate was 2%. The TRISS and GCS scores demonstrated the highest predictive performance, each with an AUC of 0.98, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity exceeding 93%. APACHE II followed closely with an AUC of 0.97, also achieving 100% sensitivity. NISS (AUC = 0.92) and ISS (AUC = 0.91) were effective anatomical scores, while RTS showed moderate predictive value (AUC = 0.90). Strong correlations were noted between ISS, NISS, and AIS (Rho > 0.85), while RTS was negatively correlated with these anatomical scores. All scoring systems showed statistically significant associations with mortality. Conclusions: TRISS, GCS, and APACHE II were the most effective trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality among emergency department patients. While complex models offer higher accuracy, simpler scores such as RTS and GCS remain valuable for rapid triage. The integration of both anatomical and physiological parameters may enhance early risk stratification and support timely decision-making in trauma care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
×
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