A retrospective validation study of the STUMBL score for emergency department patients with blunt thoracic trauma

Retrospective validation of the STUMBL score in a Level 1 trauma centre

Chest trauma is a common presentation to major trauma centres. Risk assessment tools have proven useful to support decision making in this group and the STUMBL (STUdy of the Management of BLunt chest wall trauma) score is one such measure that has been increasingly utilised. The aim of this study was to retrospectively validate the STUMBL score in an Australian population of patients admitted following chest trauma.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective validation study was undertaken using information from all patients with an Emergency Department (ED) attendance for isolated blunt chest trauma at a major trauma centre in Australia from 2018. The performance of the STUMBL score was measured including the cut-off score which best predicted 1) the discharge disposition from ED (ward or intensive care unit [ICU]), 2) the development of pulmonary complications, 3) an extended length of stay (LOS) (7 days or more) and 4) any complication (pulmonary, extended LOS, in hospital mortality). The performance measures included sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values as well discrimination and calibration.

RESULTS

There were 300 patients admitted between 1st January 2018 and 31st December 2018 with a median age of 60 years (IQR 44-75) and 65 % were male. The risk prediction cut-off score for our patient cohort ranged from 18.5 for LOS 7 days or more to 11.5 for ward admission from ED. The positive predictive value (PPV) ranged from 56.7 % for ward admission from ED to 21.1 % for pulmonary complications. The negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity was highest for ICU admission from ED (96.5 % and 80.6 %) and the specificity ranged from 78 % for all complication prediction to 65.3 % for LOS of 7 or more days. The C statistic ranged from 0.82 for ICU admission to 0.65 for pulmonary morbidity.

CONCLUSION

The performance measures of the STUMBL score are suboptimal in our population. The best performing measure was the ability to predict ICU admission. Further validation work that includes additional factors may improve the positive predictive value and clinical utility of the score in our cohort.

Clinical prediction models for the management of blunt chest trauma in the emergency department: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate how clinical prediction models compare in terms of their methodological development, validation, and predictive capabilities, for patients with blunt chest trauma presenting to the Emergency Department.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted across databases from 1st Jan 2000 until 1st April 2024. Studies were categorised into three types of multivariable prediction research and data extracted regarding methodological issues and the predictive capabilities of each model. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed.

RESULTS

41 studies were included that discussed 22 different models. The most commonly observed study design was a single-centre, retrospective, chart review. The most widely externally validated clinical prediction models with moderate to good discrimination were the Thoracic Trauma Severity Score and the STUMBL Score.

DISCUSSION

This review demonstrates that the predictive ability of some of the existing clinical prediction models is acceptable, but high risk of bias and lack of subsequent external validation limits the extensive application of the models. The Thoracic Trauma Severity Score and STUMBL Score demonstrate better predictive accuracy in both development and external validation studies than the other models, but require recalibration and / or update and evaluation of their clinical and cost effectiveness.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=351638 ).

Analgesia for rib fractures: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Rib fracture(s) is a common and painful injury often associated with significant morbidity (e.g., respiratory complications) and high mortality rates, especially in the elderly. Risk stratification and prompt implementation of analgesic pathways using a multimodal analgesia approach comprise a primary endpoint of care to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with rib fractures. This narrative review aims to describe the most recent evidence and care pathways currently available, including risk stratification tools and pharmacologic and regional analgesic blocks frequently used as part of the broadly recommended multimodal analgesic approach.

SOURCE

Available literature was searched using PubMed and Embase databases for each topic addressed herein and reviewed by content experts.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Four risk stratification tools were identified, with the Study of the Management of Blunt Chest Wall Trauma score as most predictive. Current evidence on pharmacologic (i.e., acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentinoids, ketamine, lidocaine, and dexmedetomidine) and regional analgesia (i.e., thoracic epidural analgesia, thoracic paravertebral block, erector spinae plane block, and serratus anterior plane block) techniques was reviewed, as was the pathophysiology of rib fracture(s) and its associated complications, including the development of chronic pain and disabilities.

CONCLUSION

Rib fracture(s) continues to be a serious diagnosis, with high rates of mortality, development of chronic pain, and disability. A multidisciplinary approach to management, combined with appropriate analgesia and adherence to care bundles/protocols, has been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality. Most of the risk-stratifying care pathways identified perform poorly in predicting mortality and complications after rib fracture(s).

Scoping review of the literature to ascertain how the STUMBL Score clinical prediction model is used to manage patients with blunt chest wall trauma in emergency care

INTRODUCTION

The STUMBL Score clinical prediction model was originally developed and externally validated to support clinical decision-making of patients with blunt chest wall trauma in the Emergency Department. The aim of this scoping review was to understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to the STUMBL Score clinical prediction model as a component of the management of patients with blunt chest wall trauma managed in the Emergency Care setting.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across databases, including Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 2014 to Feb 2023. In addition, a search of the grey literature was undertaken along with citation searching of relevant studies. Published and non-published sources of all research designs were included. Data extracted included specific details about the participants, concept, context, study methods and key findings relevant to the review question. Data extraction followed the JBI guidance and results presented in tabular format accompanied with a narrative summary.

RESULTS

A total of 44 sources originating from eight countries were identified, 28 were published and 16 grey literature. Sources were grouped into four separate categories: 1) external validation studies, 2) guidance documents, 3) practice reviews and educational resources 3) research studies and quality improvement projects, 4) grey literature unpublished resources. This body of evidence describes the clinical utility of the STUMBL Score and has identify how the score is being implemented and used differently in different settings including analgesic selection and participant eligibility for including in chest wall injury research studies.

DISCUSSION

This review demonstrates how the STUMBL Score has evolved from solely predicting risk of respiratory complications to a measure which supports clinical decision making for the use of complex analgesic modes and as a guide for eligibility in chest wall injury trauma research studies. Despite external validation of the STUMBL Score, there is a need for further calibration and evaluation, particularly relating to these repurposed functions of the score. Overall, the clinical benefit of the score remains clear and its wide usage demonstrates the impact it has on clinical care, patient experience and clinician decision making.