A new weighted injury severity scoring system: better predictive power for adult trauma mortality

Injury Epidemiology - Tập 6 - Trang 1-10 - 2019
Junxin Shi1,2, Jiabin Shen1,2, Motao Zhu1,2,3, Krista K. Wheeler1,2, Bo Lu4, Brian Kenney1,5, Kathryn E. Nuss3, Henry Xiang1,2,6
1Center for Pediatric Trauma Research, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, USA
2Center for Injury Research and Policy, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, USA
3The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, USA
4Department of Emergency Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, USA
5Division of Biostatistics, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, USA
6Department of Pediatric Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, USA

Tóm tắt

An accurate injury severity measurement is essential in the evaluation of trauma care and in outcome research. The traditional Injury Severity Score (ISS) does not consider the differential risks of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) from different body regions, and the three AIS involved in the calculation of ISS are given equal weights. The objective of this study was to develop a weighted injury severity scoring (wISS) system for adult trauma patients with better predictive power than the traditional Injury Severity Score (ISS). The 2007–2014 National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) Research Datasets were used. We identified adult trauma patients from the NTDB and then randomly split it into a study sample and a test sample. Based on the association between mortality and the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) from each of the six ISS body regions in the study sample, we evaluated 12 different sets of weights for the component AIS scores used in the calculation of ISS and selected one best set of weights. Discrimination (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, concordance) and calibration were compared between the wISS and ISS. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves from the wISS and ISS are all 0.83, and 0.76 vs. 0.73 for patients with ISS = 16–74 and 0.68 vs. 0.53 for patients with ISS = 25–74. The wISS showed higher specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and concordance when they were compared at similar levels of sensitivity. The wISS had better calibration than the ISS. By weighting the AIS from different body regions, the wISS had significantly better predictive power for mortality than the ISS, especially in critically injured adults.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Aharonson-Daniel L, Giveon A, Stein M, Israel Trauma G, Peleg K. Different AIS triplets: different mortality predictions in identical ISS and NISS. J Trauma. 2006;61(3):711–7. American College of Surgeons (2007-2014). NTDB Research Data Set. Committee on Trauma American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient 2014. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2014. Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W Jr, Long WB. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma. 1974;14(3):187–96. Brown JB, Gestring ML, Leeper CM, Sperry JL, Peitzman AB, Billiar TR, Gaines BA. The value of the injury severity score in pediatric trauma: time for a new definition of severe injury? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;82(6):995–1001. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Hunt TK. Trauma severity scoring to predict mortality. World J Surg. 1983;7(1):4–11. Committee on Medical Aspects of Automotive Safety (CMAAS). Rating the severity of tissue damage. I. the abbreviated scale. JAMA. 1971;215(2):277–80. Cooper A, Barlow B, DiScala C, String D. Mortality and truncal injury: the pediatric perspective. J Pediatr Surg. 1994;29(1):33–8. Copes WS, Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Lawnick MM, Keast SL, Bain LW. The injury severity score revisited. J Trauma. 1988;28(1):69–77. DeLong ER, Delong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45. MacKenzie EJ, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, Nathens AB, Frey KP, Egleston BL, Salkever DS, Scharfstein DO. A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(4):366–78. Meredith JW, Evans G, Kilgo PD, MacKenzie E, Osler T, McGwin G, Cohn S, Esposito T, Gennarelli T, Hawkins M, Lucas C, Mock C, Rotondo M, Rue L, Champion HR. A comparison of the abilities of nine scoring algorithms in predicting mortality. J Trauma. 2002;53(4):621–8 discussion 628-629. Osler T, Baker SP, Long W. A modification of the injury severity score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. J Trauma. 1997;43(6):922–5. Osler T, Rutledge R, Deis J, Bedrick E. ICISS: an international classification of disease-9 based injury severity score. J Trauma. 1996;41(3):380–6 discussion 386-388. Schneier AJ, Shields BJ, Hostetler SG, Xiang H, Smith GA. Incidence of pediatric traumatic brain injury and associated hospital resource utilization in the United States. Pediatrics. 2006;118(2):483–92. Shi J, Shen J, Caupp S, Wang A, Nuss KE, Kenney B, Wheeler KK, Lu B, Xiang H. A new weighted injury severity scoring system: better predictive power for pediatric trauma mortality. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;85(2):334–40. The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) (2006–2014). “The Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS)”. Tohira H, Jacobs I, Mountain D, Gibson N, Yeo A. Systematic review of predictive performance of injury severity scoring tools. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20:63. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993;39(4):561–77.