• 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

伊朗萨卜泽瓦尔市贝赫什提医院急诊科“创伤和损伤严重程度评分”与“马德拉斯颅脑损伤预后量表”在评估颅脑创伤预后中的比较分析

Comparative Analysis of "Trauma and Injury Severity Scores" and "Madras Head Injury Prognostic Scale" in Assessing Head Trauma Prognosis in the Emergency Department of Shahid Beheshti Hospital, Sabzevar, Iran.

作者信息

Hamidnezhad Marjan, Ansari Mozhgan, Afshari Saleh Tahura, Foji Samira

机构信息

Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran.

Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Iranian Research Center on Healthy Aging, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran.

出版信息

Bull Emerg Trauma. 2025;13(2):76-82. doi: 10.30476/beat.2025.104632.1554.

DOI:10.30476/beat.2025.104632.1554
PMID:40688808
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12275172/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Trauma and Injury Severity Scores (TRISS) and Madras Head Injury Prognostic Scale (MHIPS) in assessing the prognosis of head trauma patients in the emergency department.

METHODS

In this descriptive-analytical (predictive) study, 140 head trauma patients admitted to the emergency department of Shahid Beheshti Hospital (Sabzevar, Iran), were included from January to November 2023. Participants were selected via convenience sampling method and based on the inclusion criteria. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, the TRISS, and the MHIPS scale, and analyzed using Stata software (version 17).

RESULTS

The mean age of the injured patients was 39.72±19.86 years, and 102 (73%) patients were male. For intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization prediction, the MHIPS tool showed a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 86%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 60%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 98%. For mortality prediction, the MHIPS tool had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 86%, PPV of 27%, and NPV of 99% in predicting death. The TRISS tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 81%, a specificity of 96%, a PPV of 81%, and an NPV of 95% for ICU hospitalization, and a sensitivity of 75%, specificity of 87%, PPV of 26%, and NPV of 98% for mortality. No significant difference was observed between TRISS and MHIPS in predicting the probability of ICU admission and mortality (=0.797).

CONCLUSION

Both TRISS and MHIPS demonstrated satisfactory predictive value for head trauma outcomes, with neither tool being superior to the other.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较创伤和损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)与马德拉斯头部损伤预后量表(MHIPS)在评估急诊科头部创伤患者预后方面的有效性。

方法

在这项描述性分析(预测性)研究中,纳入了2023年1月至11月在伊朗萨卜泽瓦尔市沙希德·贝赫什提医院急诊科收治的140例头部创伤患者。参与者通过便利抽样法并根据纳入标准进行选择。使用人口统计学问卷、TRISS和MHIPS量表收集数据,并使用Stata软件(版本17)进行分析。

结果

受伤患者的平均年龄为39.72±19.86岁,102例(73%)患者为男性。对于重症监护病房(ICU)住院预测,MHIPS工具显示敏感性为92%,特异性为86%,阳性预测值(PPV)为60%,阴性预测值(NPV)为98%。对于死亡率预测,MHIPS工具在预测死亡方面的敏感性为89%,特异性为86%,PPV为27%,NPV为99%。TRISS工具在ICU住院方面的敏感性为81%,特异性为96%,PPV为81%,NPV为95%;在死亡率方面的敏感性为75%,特异性为87%,PPV为26%,NPV为98%。在预测ICU入院概率和死亡率方面,TRISS和MHIPS之间未观察到显著差异(=0.797)。

结论

TRISS和MHIPS在预测头部创伤结果方面均显示出令人满意的预测价值,两种工具均不优于另一种。

相似文献

1
Comparative Analysis of "Trauma and Injury Severity Scores" and "Madras Head Injury Prognostic Scale" in Assessing Head Trauma Prognosis in the Emergency Department of Shahid Beheshti Hospital, Sabzevar, Iran.伊朗萨卜泽瓦尔市贝赫什提医院急诊科“创伤和损伤严重程度评分”与“马德拉斯颅脑损伤预后量表”在评估颅脑创伤预后中的比较分析
Bull Emerg Trauma. 2025;13(2):76-82. doi: 10.30476/beat.2025.104632.1554.
2
AI Predictive Model of Mortality and Intensive Care Unit Admission in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Population Cohort Study of 12,000 Patients.新冠疫情中死亡率和重症监护病房收治情况的人工智能预测模型:对12000名患者的回顾性队列研究
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Jul 10;27:e70674. doi: 10.2196/70674.
3
Helicopter emergency medical services for adults with major trauma.为严重创伤的成年人提供直升机紧急医疗服务。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Mar 28(3):CD009228. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009228.pub2.
4
PECARN prediction rule for cervical spine imaging of children presenting to the emergency department with blunt trauma: a multicentre prospective observational study.PECARN 预测规则在儿童因钝器伤就诊于急诊时的颈椎成像:一项多中心前瞻性观察研究。
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2024 Jul;8(7):482-490. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(24)00104-4. Epub 2024 Jun 4.
5
Helicopter emergency medical services for adults with major trauma.针对严重创伤成人的直升机紧急医疗服务。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 15;2015(12):CD009228. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009228.pub3.
6
Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.在基层医疗机构或医院门诊环境中,如果患者出现以下症状和体征,可判断其是否患有 COVID-19。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 20;5(5):CD013665. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3.
7
Predicting mortality and intensive care needs in geriatric trauma patients: A ROC analysis of frailty and trauma scoring systems.预测老年创伤患者的死亡率和重症监护需求:脆弱性与创伤评分系统的ROC分析
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2025 Jul 21;51(1):262. doi: 10.1007/s00068-025-02924-5.
8
[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].[容量与健康结果:来自系统评价和意大利医院数据评估的证据]
Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun;37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100.
9
Diagnostic management strategies for adults and children with minor head injury: a systematic review and an economic evaluation.成人和儿童轻微头部损伤的诊断管理策略:系统评价和经济评估。
Health Technol Assess. 2011 Aug;15(27):1-202. doi: 10.3310/hta15270.
10
Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) for the diagnosis of delirium in adults in critical care settings.**用于** ICU 成人患者的意识模糊评估方法(CAM-ICU)**用于** 诊断重症监护环境下成人的意识障碍。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 21;11(11):CD013126. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013126.pub2.

本文引用的文献

1
The diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage tools in identifying patients with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review.院前分诊工具对创伤性脑损伤患者识别的诊断准确性:系统评价。
Injury. 2022 Jun;53(6):2060-2068. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.02.020. Epub 2022 Feb 12.
2
Delayed Neurosurgical Intervention in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients Referred From Primary Hospitals Is Not Associated With an Unfavorable Outcome.从基层医院转诊的创伤性脑损伤患者延迟神经外科干预与不良预后无关。
Front Neurol. 2021 Jan 13;11:610192. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.610192. eCollection 2020.
3
External validation of the TRISS, CRASH, and IMPACT prognostic models in severe traumatic brain injury in Japan.
日本严重创伤性脑损伤中 TRISS、CRASH 和 IMPACT 预后模型的外部验证。
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 26;14(8):e0221791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221791. eCollection 2019.
4
Comparison of Injury Severity Score, New Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score and Trauma and Injury Severity Score for Mortality Prediction in Elderly Trauma Patients.损伤严重度评分、新损伤严重度评分、修订创伤评分及创伤和损伤严重度评分在老年创伤患者死亡率预测中的比较
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2019 Feb;23(2):73-77. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23120.
5
Severity scores in trauma patients admitted to ICU. Physiological and anatomic models.入住重症监护病房的创伤患者的严重程度评分。生理和解剖模型。
Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2019 Jan-Feb;43(1):26-34. doi: 10.1016/j.medin.2017.11.008. Epub 2018 Feb 3.
6
Medical Management of the Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Patient.严重创伤性脑损伤患者的医疗管理。
Neurocrit Care. 2017 Dec;27(3):430-446. doi: 10.1007/s12028-017-0408-5.
7
Imaging Evaluation of Acute Traumatic Brain Injury.急性创伤性脑损伤的影像学评估
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2016 Oct;27(4):409-39. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2016.05.011. Epub 2016 Aug 10.
8
Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury.预测创伤性脑损伤后的结果。
Handb Clin Neurol. 2015;128:455-74. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63521-1.00029-7.
9
Predictive factors and models for trauma patient disposition.创伤患者处置的预测因素和模型。
J Surg Res. 2014 Jul;190(1):264-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.02.032. Epub 2014 Feb 22.
10
Comparison of the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score (APACHE) II with GCS in predicting hospital mortality of neurosurgical intensive care unit patients.急性生理与慢性健康状况评估(APACHE)II评分与格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)在预测神经外科重症监护病房患者医院死亡率方面的比较。
Glob J Health Sci. 2012 Apr 28;4(3):179-84. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v4n3p179.