• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

小儿创伤中损伤严重度评分的价值:是时候重新定义重伤了吗?

The value of the injury severity score in pediatric trauma: Time for a new definition of severe injury?

作者信息

Brown Joshua B, Gestring Mark L, Leeper Christine M, Sperry Jason L, Peitzman Andrew B, Billiar Timothy R, Gaines Barbara A

机构信息

From the Division of Trauma and General Surgery, Department of Surgery (J.B.B., C.M.L., J.L.S., A.B.P., T.R.B.), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery (M.L.G.), University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York; Golisano Children's Hospital (M.L.G.), University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; and Division of Pediatric General and Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery (C.M.L., B.A.G.), Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

出版信息

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 Jun;82(6):995-1001. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001440.

DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000001440
PMID:28328674
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5464600/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Injury Severity Score (ISS) is the most commonly used injury scoring system in trauma research and benchmarking. An ISS greater than 15 conventionally defines severe injury; however, no studies evaluate whether ISS performs similarly between adults and children. Our objective was to evaluate ISS and Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) to predict mortality and define optimal thresholds of severe injury in pediatric trauma.

METHODS

Patients from the Pennsylvania trauma registry 2000-2013 were included. Children were defined as younger than 16 years. Logistic regression predicted mortality from ISS for children and adults. The optimal ISS cutoff for mortality that maximized diagnostic characteristics was determined in children. Regression also evaluated the association between mortality and maximum AIS in each body region, controlling for age, mechanism, and nonaccidental trauma. Analysis was performed in single and multisystem injuries. Sensitivity analyses with alternative outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

Included were 352,127 adults and 50,579 children. Children had similar predicted mortality at ISS of 25 as adults at ISS of 15 (5%). The optimal ISS cutoff in children was ISS greater than 25 and had a positive predictive value of 19% and negative predictive value of 99% compared to a positive predictive value of 7% and negative predictive value of 99% for ISS greater than 15 to predict mortality. In single-system-injured children, mortality was associated with head (odds ratio, 4.80; 95% confidence interval, 2.61-8.84; p < 0.01) and chest AIS (odds ratio, 3.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-6.97; p < 0.01), but not abdomen, face, neck, spine, or extremity AIS (p > 0.05). For multisystem injury, all body region AIS scores were associated with mortality except extremities. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated ISS greater than 23 to predict need for full trauma activation, and ISS greater than 26 to predict impaired functional independence were optimal thresholds.

CONCLUSION

An ISS greater than 25 may be a more appropriate definition of severe injury in children. Pattern of injury is important, as only head and chest injury drive mortality in single-system-injured children. These findings should be considered in benchmarking and performance improvement efforts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic study, level III.

摘要

背景

损伤严重度评分(ISS)是创伤研究和基准评估中最常用的损伤评分系统。传统上,ISS大于15定义为重伤;然而,尚无研究评估成人和儿童的ISS表现是否相似。我们的目的是评估ISS和简明损伤定级标准(AIS)以预测儿科创伤患者的死亡率并确定重伤的最佳阈值。

方法

纳入2000 - 2013年宾夕法尼亚创伤登记处的患者。儿童定义为年龄小于16岁。采用逻辑回归分析预测儿童和成人因ISS导致的死亡率。确定儿童中使诊断特征最大化的死亡率的最佳ISS临界值。回归分析还评估了每个身体部位的死亡率与最大AIS之间的关联,并对年龄、受伤机制和非意外创伤进行了控制。对单系统损伤和多系统损伤分别进行分析。采用替代结局进行敏感性分析。

结果

纳入352,127名成人和50,579名儿童。儿童ISS为25时的预测死亡率与成人ISS为15时的预测死亡率相似(5%)。儿童的最佳ISS临界值为大于25,其阳性预测值为19%,阴性预测值为99%;而ISS大于15预测死亡率时,阳性预测值为7%,阴性预测值为99%。在单系统损伤的儿童中,死亡率与头部(比值比,4.80;95%置信区间,2.61 - 8.84;p < 0.01)和胸部AIS(比值比,3.55;95%置信区间,1.81 - 6.97;p < 0.01)相关,但与腹部、面部、颈部、脊柱或四肢AIS无关(p > 0.05)。对于多系统损伤,除四肢外,所有身体部位的AIS评分均与死亡率相关。敏感性分析表明,ISS大于23可预测全面创伤启动的需求,ISS大于26可预测功能独立性受损,这是最佳阈值。

结论

ISS大于25可能是儿童重伤更合适的定义。损伤模式很重要,因为在单系统损伤的儿童中,只有头部和胸部损伤会导致死亡。在基准评估和绩效改进工作中应考虑这些发现。

证据水平

流行病学研究,III级。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/918d/5464600/f348fc9fd288/nihms860672f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/918d/5464600/f16fad28374c/nihms860672f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/918d/5464600/f3cf37e55f72/nihms860672f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/918d/5464600/f348fc9fd288/nihms860672f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/918d/5464600/f16fad28374c/nihms860672f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/918d/5464600/f3cf37e55f72/nihms860672f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/918d/5464600/f348fc9fd288/nihms860672f3.jpg

相似文献

1
The value of the injury severity score in pediatric trauma: Time for a new definition of severe injury?小儿创伤中损伤严重度评分的价值:是时候重新定义重伤了吗?
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 Jun;82(6):995-1001. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001440.
2
Characterizing injury severity in nonaccidental trauma: Does Injury Severity Score miss the mark?描述非意外伤害性创伤的损伤严重程度:损伤严重程度评分是否有偏差?
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 Oct;85(4):668-673. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001841.
3
Same Abbreviated Injury Scale Values May Be Associated with Different Risks to Mortality in Trauma Patients: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study Based on the Trauma Registry System in a Level I Trauma Center.相同的简明损伤定级量表分值可能与创伤患者的死亡率风险相关:一项基于一级创伤中心创伤登记系统的横断面回顾性研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Dec 11;14(12):1552. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14121552.
4
Impact of Adapting the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)-2005 from AIS-1998 on Injury Severity Scores and Clinical Outcome.适应 AIS-2005 对伤害严重程度评分和临床结果的影响。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 10;16(24):5033. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16245033.
5
Specific abbreviated injury scale values are responsible for the underestimation of mortality in penetrating trauma patients by the injury severity score.特定的简明损伤定级(AIS)值导致损伤严重度评分低估穿透性创伤患者的死亡率。
J Trauma. 2011 Aug;71(2 Suppl 3):S384-8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182287c8d.
6
A new weighted injury severity scoring system: Better predictive power for pediatric trauma mortality.一种新的加权损伤严重程度评分系统:更好地预测儿科创伤死亡率。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 Aug;85(2):334-340. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001943.
7
Defining major trauma using the 2008 Abbreviated Injury Scale.使用2008年简明损伤分级标准定义严重创伤。
Injury. 2016 Jan;47(1):109-15. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.07.003. Epub 2015 Jul 10.
8
Comparison of the Injury Severity Score and ICD-9 diagnosis codes as predictors of outcome in injury: analysis of 44,032 patients.损伤严重程度评分与ICD - 9诊断编码作为损伤预后预测指标的比较:对44,032例患者的分析
J Trauma. 1997 Mar;42(3):477-87; discussion 487-9. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199703000-00016.
9
[Correlation between survival time and severity of injuries in fatal injuries in traffic accidents].[交通事故致命伤中生存时间与损伤严重程度的相关性]
Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2001 Nov-Dec;129(11-12):291-5.
10
Impact of AIS 2015 versus 1998 on injury severity scoring and mortality prediction - single centre retrospective comparison study.2015 年与 1998 年版 AIS 对创伤严重程度评分和死亡率预测的影响-单中心回顾性比较研究。
Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Oct;60:73-77. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.07.050. Epub 2022 Jul 25.

引用本文的文献

1
Predictors of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intubated pediatric trauma patients.插管小儿创伤患者呼吸机相关性肺炎的预测因素
Pediatr Surg Int. 2025 Jul 17;41(1):216. doi: 10.1007/s00383-025-06131-6.
2
Construction and validation of a machine learning based prognostic prediction model for children with traumatic brain injury.基于机器学习的创伤性脑损伤患儿预后预测模型的构建与验证
Front Pediatr. 2025 May 19;13:1581945. doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1581945. eCollection 2025.
3
Quality of pediatric trauma care: development of an age-adjusted TRISS model and survival benchmarking in a major trauma center.儿童创伤护理质量:在一家大型创伤中心开发年龄调整后的TRISS模型及生存基准评估
Front Pediatr. 2024 Dec 12;12:1481467. doi: 10.3389/fped.2024.1481467. eCollection 2024.
4
Effective Treatments for Abductor Vocal Cord Paralysis: A Comprehensive Review.外展性声带麻痹的有效治疗方法:全面综述
Cureus. 2024 Aug 21;16(8):e67438. doi: 10.7759/cureus.67438. eCollection 2024 Aug.
5
Comparison of Scoring Systems for Mortality Prediction in Pediatric Multitrauma Patients.小儿多发伤患者死亡率预测评分系统的比较
J Pediatr Intensive Care. 2021 Dec 7;13(2):162-167. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1740361. eCollection 2024 Jun.
6
Childhood opportunity and appropriate use of child safety restraints in motor vehicle collisions.儿童期机遇与机动车碰撞中儿童安全约束装置的合理使用
World J Pediatr Surg. 2024 Apr 2;7(2):e000703. doi: 10.1136/wjps-2023-000703. eCollection 2024.
7
Comparison of nine trauma scoring systems in prediction of inhospital outcomes of pediatric trauma patients: a multicenter study.比较九种创伤评分系统在预测儿科创伤患者住院结局中的作用:一项多中心研究。
Sci Rep. 2024 Apr 1;14(1):7646. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-58373-4.
8
A Retrospective Study to Compare the Glasgow Coma Score, Pediatric Trauma Score, and Injury Severity Score and Outcomes in 118 Pediatric Trauma Patients at a Single Emergency Center in Turkey.一项回顾性研究,比较了土耳其某单一急救中心的 118 例儿科创伤患者的格拉斯哥昏迷评分、儿科创伤评分和损伤严重度评分与结局。
Med Sci Monit. 2024 Mar 22;30:e943501. doi: 10.12659/MSM.943501.
9
How significant is the BIG score in childhood traumatic brain injury?儿童创伤性脑损伤中BIG评分的意义有多大?
Childs Nerv Syst. 2024 Jun;40(6):1827-1831. doi: 10.1007/s00381-024-06315-w. Epub 2024 Feb 15.
10
Injury Pattern and Current Early Clinical Care of Pediatric Polytrauma Comparing Different Age Groups in a Level I Trauma Center.一级创伤中心不同年龄组小儿多发伤的损伤模式及当前早期临床护理
J Clin Med. 2024 Jan 22;13(2):639. doi: 10.3390/jcm13020639.

本文引用的文献

1
Using a multidisciplinary and evidence-based approach to decrease undertriage and overtriage of pediatric trauma patients.采用多学科且基于证据的方法,以减少儿科创伤患者的分诊不足和过度分诊情况。
J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Sep;51(9):1518-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.04.010. Epub 2016 Apr 22.
2
A consensus-based criterion standard definition for pediatric patients who needed the highest-level trauma team activation.一个基于共识的标准定义,用于确定需要最高级别创伤团队激活的儿科患者。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Mar;78(3):634-8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000543.
3
Systematic review of predictive performance of injury severity scoring tools.系统评价损伤严重程度评分工具的预测性能。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012 Sep 10;20:63. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-20-63.
4
Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2011.《伤员现场分类指南:国家现场分类专家小组 2011 年的建议》。
MMWR Recomm Rep. 2012 Jan 13;61(RR-1):1-20.
5
Pediatric advanced life support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.儿科高级生命支持:2010年美国心脏协会心肺复苏及心血管急救指南
Pediatrics. 2010 Nov;126(5):e1361-99. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2972D. Epub 2010 Oct 18.
6
Trauma center designation correlates with functional independence after severe but not moderate traumatic brain injury.创伤中心的指定与重度而非中度创伤性脑损伤后的功能独立性相关。
J Trauma. 2010 Aug;69(2):263-9. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e5d72e.
7
TMPM-ICD9: a trauma mortality prediction model based on ICD-9-CM codes.TMPM-ICD9:一种基于国际疾病分类第九版临床修正版(ICD-9-CM)编码的创伤死亡率预测模型。
Ann Surg. 2009 Jun;249(6):1032-9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a38f28.
8
Major trauma and the injury severity score--where should we set the bar?严重创伤与损伤严重程度评分——我们应如何设定标准?
Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2007;51:13-29.
9
Analysis of the evidence for the lower limit of systolic and mean arterial pressure in children.儿童收缩压和平均动脉压下限的证据分析
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2007 Mar;8(2):138-44. doi: 10.1097/01.PCC.0000257039.32593.DC.
10
Epidemiology and early predictive factors of mortality and outcome in children with traumatic severe brain injury: experience of a French pediatric trauma center.创伤性重型脑损伤患儿死亡率及预后的流行病学和早期预测因素:一家法国儿科创伤中心的经验
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2006 Sep;7(5):461-7. doi: 10.1097/01.PCC.0000235245.49129.27.