O'Neill B, Zador P, Baker S P
Health Serv Res. 1979 Spring;14(1):68-76.
A recent paper on the concepts underlying six indexes of severity that have been proposed for health services research claimed to identify deficiencies in each. A close examination reveals that the criticisms are generally without substance, and that the claim that the indexes "violate some of the principles implied by their formulation" is in error. Most of the objections apparently stem from fundamental confusion concerning the use of such indexes. Two of the indexes in question, the Abbreviated Injury Scale AIS) and the Injury Severity Score (ISS), have been validated and are being used widely both in the United States and elsewhere as the principal descriptors of trauma in motor vehicle crashes. The use of these indexes has contributed significantly to motor vehicle crash research and to the improvements in vehicles and highways that are reducing the trauma resulting from such crashes.
最近一篇关于为卫生服务研究提出的六个严重程度指标背后概念的论文声称发现了每个指标存在的缺陷。仔细研究后发现，这些批评大多没有实质内容，而且称这些指标“违反了其制定所隐含的一些原则”的说法是错误的。大多数反对意见显然源于对这类指标使用的根本混淆。其中两个指标，即简明损伤定级（AIS）和损伤严重度评分（ISS），已经得到验证，并且在美国和其他地方都被广泛用作机动车碰撞事故中创伤的主要描述指标。这些指标的使用对机动车碰撞事故研究以及车辆和公路的改进做出了重大贡献，而这些改进正在减少此类碰撞事故造成的创伤。
