新损伤严重程度评分与损伤严重程度评分的比较。
Comparison of the New Injury Severity Score and the Injury Severity Score.
作者信息
Tay Seow-Yian, Sloan Edward P, Zun Leslie, Zaret Philip
机构信息
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA.
出版信息
J Trauma. 2004 Jan;56(1):162-4. doi: 10.1097/01.TA.0000058311.67607.07.
BACKGROUND
The New Injury Severity Score (NISS) was proposed in 1997 to replace the Injury Severity Score (ISS) because it is more sensitive for mortality. We aim to test whether this is true in our patients.
METHODS
This study was a retrospective review of data from 6,231 consecutive patients over 3 years in the trauma registry of a Level I trauma center studying outcome, ISS, and NISS.
RESULTS
Misclassification rates were 3.97% for the NISS and 4.35% for the ISS. The receiver operating characteristic curve areas were 0.936 and 0.94, respectively. Neither the ISS nor the NISS were well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic, 36.11 and 49.28, respectively; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
The NISS should not replace the ISS, as they share similar accuracy and calibration.
背景
1997年提出了新损伤严重程度评分（NISS）以取代损伤严重程度评分（ISS），因为它对死亡率更敏感。我们旨在检验在我们的患者中情况是否如此。
方法
本研究是对一级创伤中心创伤登记处3年期间连续6231例患者的数据进行回顾性分析，研究结局、ISS和NISS。
结果
NISS的错误分类率为3.97%，ISS为4.35%。受试者工作特征曲线面积分别为0.936和0.94。ISS和NISS的校准均不佳（Hosmer-Lemeshow统计量分别为36.11和49.28；p<0.001）。
结论
NISS不应取代ISS，因为它们的准确性和校准相似。
Zotero 插件