Van Belleghem Griet, Devos Stefanie, De Wit Liesbet, Hubloue Ives, Lauwaert Door, Pien Karen, Putman Koen
Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Injury. 2016 Jan;47(1):141-6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.025. Epub 2015 Aug 25.
Injury severity scores are important in the context of developing European and national goals on traffic safety, health-care benchmarking and improving patient communication. Various severity scores are available and are mostly based on Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD). The aim of this paper is to compare the predictive value for in-hospital mortality between the various severity scores if only International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification ICD-9-CM is reported.
To estimate severity scores based on the AIS lexicon, ICD-9-CM codes were converted with ICD Programmes for Injury Categorization (ICDPIC) and four AIS-based severity scores were derived: Maximum AIS (MaxAIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and Exponential Injury Severity Score (EISS). Based on ICD-9-CM, six severity scores were calculated. Determined by the number of injuries taken into account and the means by which survival risk ratios (SRRs) were calculated, four different approaches were used to calculate the ICD-9-based Injury Severity Scores (ICISS). The Trauma Mortality Prediction Model (TMPM) was calculated with the ICD-9-CM-based model averaged regression coefficients (MARC) for both the single worst injury and multiple injuries. Severity scores were compared via model discrimination and calibration. Model comparisons were performed separately for the severity scores based on the single worst injury and multiple injuries.
For ICD-9-based scales, estimation of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) ranges between 0.94 and 0.96, while AIS-based scales range between 0.72 and 0.76, respectively. The intercept in the calibration plots is not significantly different from 0 for MaxAIS, ICISS and TMPM.
When only ICD-9-CM codes are reported, ICD-9-CM-based severity scores perform better than severity scores based on the conversion to AIS.
在制定欧洲及各国交通安全目标、医疗保健基准以及改善医患沟通的背景下,损伤严重程度评分至关重要。有多种严重程度评分可供使用,且大多基于简略损伤量表(AIS)或国际疾病分类(ICD)。本文旨在比较仅报告国际疾病分类第九版临床修订本(ICD - 9 - CM)时,各种严重程度评分对院内死亡率的预测价值。
为基于AIS词汇表估计严重程度评分,使用损伤分类ICD程序(ICDPIC)将ICD - 9 - CM编码进行转换,并得出四个基于AIS的严重程度评分:最大AIS(MaxAIS)、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、新损伤严重程度评分(NISS)和指数损伤严重程度评分(EISS)。基于ICD - 9 - CM计算了六个严重程度评分。根据所考虑损伤的数量以及计算生存风险比(SRR)的方式,使用四种不同方法计算基于ICD - 9的损伤严重程度评分(ICISS)。使用基于ICD - 9 - CM的模型平均回归系数(MARC)为单处最严重损伤和多处损伤计算创伤死亡率预测模型(TMPM)。通过模型辨别和校准对严重程度评分进行比较。基于单处最严重损伤和多处损伤的严重程度评分分别进行模型比较。
对于基于ICD - 9的量表,受试者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)估计值在0.94至0.96之间,而基于AIS的量表分别在0.72至0.76之间。校准图中的截距对于MaxAIS、ICISS和TMPM而言与0无显著差异。
当仅报告ICD - 9 - CM编码时,基于ICD - 9 - CM的严重程度评分比基于转换为AIS的严重程度评分表现更好。