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。
Comparison of nine trauma scoring systems in prediction of inhospital outcomes of pediatric trauma patients: a multicenter study.
机构信息
Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Trauma Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran.
出版信息
Sci Rep. 2024 Apr 1;14(1):7646. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-58373-4.
Hereby, we aimed to comprehensively compare different scoring systems for pediatric trauma and their ability to predict in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The current registry-based multicenter study encompassed a comprehensive dataset of 6709 pediatric trauma patients aged ≤ 18 years from July 2016 to September 2023. To ascertain the predictive efficacy of the scoring systems, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated. A total of 720 individuals (10.7%) required admission to the ICU. The mortality rate was 1.1% (n = 72). The most predictive scoring system for in-hospital mortality was the adjusted trauma and injury severity score (aTRISS) (AUC = 0.982), followed by trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) (AUC = 0.980), new trauma and injury severity score (NTRISS) (AUC = 0.972), Glasgow coma scale (GCS) (AUC = 0.9546), revised trauma score (RTS) (AUC = 0.944), pre-hospital index (PHI) (AUC = 0.936), injury severity score (ISS) (AUC = 0.901), new injury severity score (NISS) (AUC = 0.900), and abbreviated injury scale (AIS) (AUC = 0.734). Given the predictive performance of the scoring systems for ICU admission, NTRISS had the highest predictive performance (AUC = 0.837), followed by aTRISS (AUC = 0.836), TRISS (AUC = 0.823), ISS (AUC = 0.807), NISS (AUC = 0.805), GCS (AUC = 0.735), RTS (AUC = 0.698), PHI (AUC = 0.662), and AIS (AUC = 0.651). In the present study, we concluded the superiority of the TRISS and its two derived counterparts, aTRISS and NTRISS, compared to other scoring systems, to efficiently discerning individuals who possess a heightened susceptibility to unfavorable consequences. The significance of these findings underscores the necessity of incorporating these metrics into the realm of clinical practice.
在此,我们旨在全面比较不同的儿科创伤评分系统及其预测院内死亡率和重症监护病房(ICU)入住率的能力。本基于登记的多中心研究纳入了 2016 年 7 月至 2023 年 9 月期间年龄≤18 岁的 6709 例儿科创伤患者的综合数据集。为确定评分系统的预测效果,计算了受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)。共有 720 人(10.7%)需要入住 ICU。死亡率为 1.1%(n=72)。预测院内死亡率最准确的评分系统是校正创伤和损伤严重度评分(aTRISS)(AUC=0.982),其次是创伤和损伤严重度评分(TRISS)(AUC=0.980)、新创伤和损伤严重度评分(NTRISS)(AUC=0.972)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)(AUC=0.9546)、修订创伤评分(RTS)(AUC=0.944)、院前指数(PHI)(AUC=0.936)、损伤严重度评分(ISS)(AUC=0.901)、新损伤严重度评分(NISS)(AUC=0.900)和简明损伤评分(AIS)(AUC=0.734)。鉴于评分系统对 ICU 入住率的预测性能,NTRISS 的预测性能最高(AUC=0.837),其次是 aTRISS(AUC=0.836)、TRISS(AUC=0.823)、ISS(AUC=0.807)、NISS(AUC=0.805)、GCS(AUC=0.735)、RTS(AUC=0.698)、PHI(AUC=0.662)和 AIS(AUC=0.651)。在本研究中,我们得出结论,TRISS 及其两个衍生版本 aTRISS 和 NTRISS 优于其他评分系统,能够有效地识别出那些更容易出现不良后果的个体。这些发现的意义强调了将这些指标纳入临床实践的必要性。