评估创伤评分对儿科患者死亡率预测的影响。

IF 1.7 Q3 PEDIATRICS
Mehmet Akif Dündar, Sedanur Tekin Can, Başak Nur Akyıldız
{"title":"评估创伤评分对儿科患者死亡率预测的影响。","authors":"Mehmet Akif Dündar, Sedanur Tekin Can, Başak Nur Akyıldız","doi":"10.5152/TurkArchPediatr.2025.25040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of various trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality in pediatric patients with multiple trauma and to determine their cut-off values. Materials and Methods: A methodological study was conducted on pediatric patients under 18 years of age admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit for multiple trauma. Demographic data, clinical parameters, and trauma scores, including the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Pediatric Trauma Score (PTS), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Pediatric Risk of Mortality Score III (PRISM-3), and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD-2), were collected and analyzed. Results: Among the 107 patients, there were 15 deaths (14%). Significant differences were observed between survivors and non-survivors in all trauma scores. Non-survivors had higher AIS, ISS, PRISM-3, and PELOD-2 scores, while survivors had higher PTS, RTS, and GCS scores (P < .001). In the multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, both ISS (odds ratio [OR] 1.060 [95% CI: 1.029-1.092], P < .001) and RTS (OR 0.059 [95% CI: 0.007-0.517], P =.011) were independently associated with mortality. Injury Severity Score demonstrated the highest area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.98 in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Conclusion: Both ISS and RTS were identified as independent predictors of mortality in pediatric trauma patients. Injury Severity Score was the strongest predictor, while RTS also provided significant prognostic value. Integration of these scores into early assessment may enhance risk stratification and support clinical decision-making in pediatric trauma care.</p>","PeriodicalId":75267,"journal":{"name":"Turkish archives of pediatrics","volume":"60 4","pages":"391-397"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12257768/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Trauma Scores for Mortality Prediction in Pediatric Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Mehmet Akif Dündar, Sedanur Tekin Can, Başak Nur Akyıldız\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/TurkArchPediatr.2025.25040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of various trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality in pediatric patients with multiple trauma and to determine their cut-off values. Materials and Methods: A methodological study was conducted on pediatric patients under 18 years of age admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit for multiple trauma. Demographic data, clinical parameters, and trauma scores, including the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Pediatric Trauma Score (PTS), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Pediatric Risk of Mortality Score III (PRISM-3), and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD-2), were collected and analyzed. Results: Among the 107 patients, there were 15 deaths (14%). Significant differences were observed between survivors and non-survivors in all trauma scores. Non-survivors had higher AIS, ISS, PRISM-3, and PELOD-2 scores, while survivors had higher PTS, RTS, and GCS scores (P < .001). In the multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, both ISS (odds ratio [OR] 1.060 [95% CI: 1.029-1.092], P < .001) and RTS (OR 0.059 [95% CI: 0.007-0.517], P =.011) were independently associated with mortality. Injury Severity Score demonstrated the highest area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.98 in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Conclusion: Both ISS and RTS were identified as independent predictors of mortality in pediatric trauma patients. Injury Severity Score was the strongest predictor, while RTS also provided significant prognostic value. Integration of these scores into early assessment may enhance risk stratification and support clinical decision-making in pediatric trauma care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish archives of pediatrics\",\"volume\":\"60 4\",\"pages\":\"391-397\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12257768/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish archives of pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkArchPediatr.2025.25040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish archives of pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkArchPediatr.2025.25040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估各种创伤评分系统在预测儿科多重创伤患者死亡率方面的有效性,并确定其临界值。材料和方法:对18岁以下因多发创伤入住儿科重症监护病房的儿科患者进行方法学研究。收集和分析人口统计学数据、临床参数和创伤评分,包括修订创伤评分(RTS)、儿科创伤评分(PTS)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)、简易伤害量表(AIS)、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、儿科死亡风险评分III (PRISM-3)和儿科后勤器官功能障碍(PELOD-2)。结果:107例患者中死亡15例(14%)。在所有创伤评分中,幸存者和非幸存者之间观察到显著差异。非幸存者的AIS、ISS、PRISM-3和PELOD-2评分较高,而幸存者的PTS、RTS和GCS评分较高(P < 0.001)。在多变量二元logistic回归分析中,ISS(比值比[OR] 1.060 [95% CI: 1.029-1.092], P < .001)和RTS (OR 0.059 [95% CI: 0.007-0.517], P =.011)与死亡率独立相关。在受试者工作特征(ROC)分析中,损伤严重程度评分曲线下面积(AUC)值最高,为0.98。结论:ISS和RTS均可作为儿童创伤患者死亡率的独立预测因子。损伤严重程度评分是最强的预测因子,而RTS也提供了显著的预后价值。将这些评分整合到早期评估中可以加强风险分层,并支持儿科创伤护理的临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Trauma Scores for Mortality Prediction in Pediatric Patients.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of various trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality in pediatric patients with multiple trauma and to determine their cut-off values. Materials and Methods: A methodological study was conducted on pediatric patients under 18 years of age admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit for multiple trauma. Demographic data, clinical parameters, and trauma scores, including the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Pediatric Trauma Score (PTS), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Pediatric Risk of Mortality Score III (PRISM-3), and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD-2), were collected and analyzed. Results: Among the 107 patients, there were 15 deaths (14%). Significant differences were observed between survivors and non-survivors in all trauma scores. Non-survivors had higher AIS, ISS, PRISM-3, and PELOD-2 scores, while survivors had higher PTS, RTS, and GCS scores (P < .001). In the multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, both ISS (odds ratio [OR] 1.060 [95% CI: 1.029-1.092], P < .001) and RTS (OR 0.059 [95% CI: 0.007-0.517], P =.011) were independently associated with mortality. Injury Severity Score demonstrated the highest area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.98 in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Conclusion: Both ISS and RTS were identified as independent predictors of mortality in pediatric trauma patients. Injury Severity Score was the strongest predictor, while RTS also provided significant prognostic value. Integration of these scores into early assessment may enhance risk stratification and support clinical decision-making in pediatric 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
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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