de Munter Leonie, Polinder Suzanne, Lansink Koen W W, Cnossen Maryse C, Steyerberg Ewout W, de Jongh Mariska A C
Department Trauma TopCare, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Injury. 2017 Feb;48(2):221-229. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.12.009. Epub 2016 Dec 15.
Trauma is the leading cause of death in individuals younger than 40 years. There are many different models for predicting patient outcome following trauma. To our knowledge, no comprehensive review has been performed on prognostic models for the general trauma population. Therefore, this review aimed to describe (1) existing mortality prediction models for the general trauma population, (2) the methodological quality and (3) which variables are most relevant for the model prediction of mortality in the general trauma population.
An online search was conducted in June 2015 using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cinahl, Cochrane, Google Scholar and PubMed. Relevant English peer-reviewed articles that developed, validated or updated mortality prediction models in a general trauma population were included.
A total of 90 articles were included. The cohort sizes ranged from 100 to 1,115,389 patients, with overall mortality rates that ranged from 0.6% to 35%. The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) was the most commonly used model. A total of 258 models were described in the articles, of which only 103 models (40%) were externally validated. Cases with missing values were often excluded and discrimination of the different prediction models ranged widely (AUROC between 0.59 and 0.98). The predictors were often included as dichotomized or categorical variables, while continuous variables showed better performance.
Researchers are still searching for a better mortality prediction model in the general trauma population. Models should 1) be developed and/or validated using an adequate sample size with sufficient events per predictor variable, 2) use multiple imputation models to address missing values, 3) use the continuous variant of the predictor if available and 4) incorporate all different types of readily available predictors (i.e., physiological variables, anatomical variables, injury cause/mechanism, and demographic variables). Furthermore, while mortality rates are decreasing, it is important to develop models that predict physical, cognitive status, or quality of life to measure quality of care.
创伤是40岁以下人群的主要死因。有许多不同的模型用于预测创伤后的患者预后。据我们所知,尚未对一般创伤人群的预后模型进行全面综述。因此,本综述旨在描述:(1)一般创伤人群现有的死亡率预测模型;(2)方法学质量;(3)哪些变量与一般创伤人群死亡率的模型预测最相关。
2015年6月使用Embase、Medline、Web of Science、Cinahl、Cochrane、Google Scholar和PubMed进行在线检索。纳入在一般创伤人群中开发、验证或更新死亡率预测模型的相关英文同行评审文章。
共纳入90篇文章。队列规模从100至1115389例患者不等,总体死亡率在0.6%至35%之间。创伤和损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)是最常用的模型。文章中共描述了258个模型,其中只有103个模型(40%)进行了外部验证。缺失值的病例常被排除,不同预测模型的辨别力差异很大(曲线下面积在0.59至0.98之间)。预测因子常作为二分或分类变量纳入,而连续变量表现更佳。
研究人员仍在为一般创伤人群寻找更好的死亡率预测模型。模型应:1)使用足够的样本量进行开发和/或验证,每个预测变量有足够的事件;2)使用多重填补模型处理缺失值;3)若有连续型预测因子则使用其连续变量形式;4)纳入所有不同类型的现成预测因子(即生理变量、解剖变量、损伤原因/机制和人口统计学变量)。此外,虽然死亡率在下降,但开发预测身体、认知状态或生活质量以衡量医疗质量的模型很重要。