Bouillon B, Lefering R, Vorweg M, Tiling T, Neugebauer E, Troidl H
Department of Surgery, University of Cologne, Germany.
J Trauma. 1997 Apr;42(4):652-8. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199704000-00012.
Most standard trauma score systems have been developed and validated in the United States. However, trauma differs between the United States and Germany. This prospective study tested the validity of eight current trauma scoring systems (Glasgow Coma Scale, Trauma Score, Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, TRISSTS, TRISSRTS, Prehospital Index, Polytraumaschluessel) in 612 patients in Cologne.
Between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1987, 2,136 trauma related emergencies were seen by emergency physicians in the field. All trauma patients with a Trauma Score below 16 and a random sample of 10% of patients with a Trauma Score of 16 were included in the study (n = 625). Follow-up was successfully completed for 612 patients (97%). Their hospital outcome was correlated with their individual score result.
All trauma score systems under study showed high accuracy rates. TRISSRTS and TRISSTS performed best with values of above 0.97 for the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve.
We conclude that the standard trauma score systems are valid tools for patient classification and support TRISSRTS as the international reference score system for the assessment of injury severity. This validation will allow comparisons between different trauma care systems.
大多数标准创伤评分系统是在美国开发并验证的。然而,美国和德国的创伤情况有所不同。这项前瞻性研究在科隆的612名患者中测试了八种当前创伤评分系统(格拉斯哥昏迷量表、创伤评分、修订创伤评分、损伤严重度评分、TRISSTS、TRISSRTS、院前指数、多发伤评分)的有效性。
在1987年1月1日至1987年12月31日期间,急诊医生在现场共诊治了2136例与创伤相关的急症患者。所有创伤评分低于16分的患者以及创伤评分为16分的患者中随机抽取10%纳入研究(n = 625)。612例患者(97%)成功完成随访。他们的医院结局与各自的评分结果相关。
所有研究中的创伤评分系统均显示出较高的准确率。TRISSRTS和TRISSTS表现最佳,受试者工作特征曲线下面积值高于0.97。
我们得出结论,标准创伤评分系统是用于患者分类的有效工具,并支持将TRISSRTS作为评估损伤严重程度的国际参考评分系统。这种验证将允许不同创伤护理系统之间进行比较。