Suppr超能文献

用于生存机会估计的当前损伤评分系统比较:一项在荷兰地方创伤登记中比较损伤严重度评分(ISS)、新损伤严重度评分(NISS)和简明损伤定级(AP)评分预测性能的评估

Comparison of current injury scales for survival chance estimation: an evaluation comparing the predictive performance of the ISS, NISS, and AP scores in a Dutch local trauma registration.

作者信息

Frankema Sander P G, Steyerberg Ewout W, Edwards Michael J R, van Vugt Arie B

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Trauma. 2005 Mar;58(3):596-604. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000152551.39400.6f.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Prediction of survival chances for trauma patients is a basic requirement for evaluation of trauma care. The current methods are the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). Scales for scoring injury severity are part of these methods. This study compared three injury scales, the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the New ISS (NISS), and the Anatomic Profile (AP), in three otherwise identical predictive models.

METHODS

Records of the Rotterdam Trauma Center were analyzed using logistic regression. The variables used in the models were age (as a linear variable), the corrected Revised Trauma Score (RTS), a denominator for blunt or penetrating trauma, and one of the three injury scales. The original TRISS and ASCOT models also were evaluated. The resulting models were compared in terms of their discriminative power, as indicated by the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC), and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow [HL]) for the entire range of injury severity.

RESULTS

For this study, 1,102 patients, with an average ISS of 15, met the inclusion criteria. The TRISS and ASCOT models, using original coefficients, showed excellent discriminative power (ROC, 0.94 and 0.96, respectively), but insufficient fits (HL, p = 0.001 and p = 0.03, respectively). The three fitted models also had excellent discriminative abilities (ROC, 0.95, 0.97, and 0.96, respectively). The custom ISS model was unable to fit the entire range of survival chances sufficiently (p = 0.01). Models using the NISS and AP scales provided adequate fits to the actual survival chances of the population (HL, 0.32 and 0.12, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The AP and NISS scores particularly both managed to outperform the ISS score in correctly predicting survival chances among a Dutch trauma population. Trauma registries stratifying injuries by the ISS score should evaluate the use of the NISS and AP scores.

摘要

背景

预测创伤患者的生存几率是评估创伤护理的基本要求。当前的方法是创伤和损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)及创伤严重程度特征化评分(ASCOT)。损伤严重程度评分量表是这些方法的一部分。本研究在三个其他方面相同的预测模型中比较了三种损伤量表,即损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、新损伤严重程度评分(NISS)和解剖学概况评分(AP)。

方法

使用逻辑回归分析鹿特丹创伤中心的记录。模型中使用的变量包括年龄(作为线性变量)、校正后的修订创伤评分(RTS)、钝性或穿透性创伤的分母以及三种损伤量表之一。还评估了原始的TRISS和ASCOT模型。根据受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)所示的区分能力以及针对整个损伤严重程度范围的校准(Hosmer-Lemeshow [HL])对所得模型进行比较。

结果

本研究纳入了1102例患者,平均ISS为15,符合纳入标准。使用原始系数的TRISS和ASCOT模型显示出出色的区分能力(ROC分别为0.94和0.96),但拟合不足(HL,p分别为0.001和0.03)。三个拟合模型也具有出色的区分能力(ROC分别为0.95、0.97和0.96)。自定义ISS模型无法充分拟合整个生存几率范围(p = 0.01)。使用NISS和AP量表的模型能够充分拟合总体人群的实际生存几率(HL分别为0.32和0.12)。

结论

在正确预测荷兰创伤人群的生存几率方面,AP和NISS评分均尤其优于ISS评分。按ISS评分对损伤进行分层的创伤登记处应评估NISS和AP评分的使用情况。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验