Comparing traditional and novel injury scoring systems in a US level-I trauma center: an opportunity for improved injury surveillance in low- and middle-income countries

Predicting Mortality in Trauma Research: Evaluating the Performance of Trauma Scoring Tools in a South African Population

Background Trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in low-resource settings, yet trauma severity scores are seldom validated in these contexts. There is a pressing need to better characterize and compare trauma scoring tools, especially within research frameworks. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of various trauma scoring tools in predicting in-hospital mortality among trauma patients in South Africa. Methods This study conducted a secondary analysis of existing data from the multicenter Epidemiology and Outcomes of Prolonged Trauma Care (EpiC) study, which included 13,548 adult trauma patients aged 18 years and older, collected between August 2021 and March 2024. The predictive ability of the scoring tools was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Results The mortality rate was 2.5% (n = 298). The Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) demonstrated the highest predictive ability for seven-day in-hospital mortality, with an AUROC of 0.95 and an AUPRC of 0.53. Similarly, the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) also exhibited strong predictive capabilities, with AUROC values of 0.96 and AUPRC values of 0.62 for TRISS and an AUROC of 0.96 and AUPRC of 0.53 for NISS. In contrast, the Revised Trauma Score and Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure (MGAP) showed lower predictive performance, with AUROC values of 0.87 (AUPRC = 0.51) and 0.86 (AUPRC = 0.47), respectively. Conclusions The KTS exhibited optimal performance characteristics for retrospectively predicting mortality in our cohort, outperforming other scoring tools. Notably, it is also the simplest scoring tool, featuring the fewest variables compared to other trauma severity assessments. These findings highlight the necessity for external validation of trauma scoring tools in resource-limited populations to ensure their applicability and effectiveness in trauma research across diverse healthcare settings.

Using the GAP score as a complement to the NISS score in identifying severely injured patients- A registry-based cohort study of adult trauma patients in Sweden

BACKGROUND

New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Pressure (GAP) scoring systems have cutoffs to define severe injury and identify high-risk patients. This is important in trauma quality monitoring and improvement. The overall aim was to explore if GAP scoring system can be a complement or an alternative to the traditional NISS scoring system.

METHODS

Adults exposed to trauma between 2017 and 2021 were included in the study, using data from The Swedish Trauma Registry. The performance of NISS and GAP scores in predicting mortality, and ICU admissions were assessed using the area under the receiver operator characteristics (AUROC) in all patients and in subgroups (blunt, penetrating trauma and older (≥65 years) trauma patients). Patients were classified as severely injured by NISS >15 as Severely Injured NISS (SIN) or with a high-risk for mortality, by GAP 3-18 as High Risk GAP (HRG). Undertriage was calculated based on the cutoffs HRG and SIN.

RESULTS

Overall, 37,017 patients were included. The AUROC (95 % CI) for mortality using NISS was 0.84 (0.83-0.85) and for GAP 0.92 (0.91-0.93) (p-value <0.001), the AUROC (95 % CI) for ICU-admissions was 0.82 (0.82-0.83) using NISS and for GAP 0.70 (0.70-0.71) p-value <0.001, in the overall cohort. In older patients the AUROC (95 % CI) for mortality was 0.76 (0.75-0.78) using NISS and 0.79 (0.78-0.81) using GAP, p-value <0.001. Overall, 8,572 (23.2 %) and 2,908 (7.9 %) were classified as SIN and HRG, respectively, with mortality rates of 13.7 % and 34.3 %. In the HRG group low-energy falls dominated and in the SIN group most patients were exposed to MVCs. In the SIN and HRG groups the rate of Emergency Trauma Interventions according to Utstein guidelines (ETIU) and ICU admission was 14.0 vs 9.5 % and 47.0 vs 62.5 % respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the GAP score and its cutoff 3-18 can be used to define severe trauma as complement to NISS >15 and can be a valuable tool in trauma quality monitoring and improvement. However, both scoring systems were less accurate in predicting mortality for the older trauma patients and should be explored further.

The predictive value of the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) in the outcome of multi-traumatic patients compared to the estimated Injury Severity Score (eISS)

PURPOSE

The classification of trauma patients in emergency settings is a constant challenge for physicians. However, the Injury Severity Score (ISS) is widely used in developed countries, it may be difficult to perform it in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). As a result, the ISS was calculated using an estimated methodology that has been described and validated in a high-income country previously. In addition, a simple scoring tool called the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) was developed recently. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of KTS and estimated ISS (eISS) in order to achieve a valid and efficient scoring system in our resource-limited setting.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study between December 2020 and March 2021 among the multi-trauma patients who presented at the emergency department of Imam Reza hospital, Tabriz, Iran. After obtaining informed consent, all data including age, sex, mechanism of injury, GCS, KTS, eISS, final outcome (including death, morbidity, or discharge), and length of hospital stay were collected and entered into SPSS version 27.0 and analyzed.

RESULTS

381 multi-trauma patients participated in the study. The area under the curve for prediction of mortality (AUC) for KTS was 0.923 (95%CI: 0.888-0.958) and for eISS was 0.910 (95% CI: 0.877-0.944). For the mortality, comparing the AUCs by the Delong test, the difference between areas was not statistically significant (p value = 0.356). The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for the prediction of mortality KTS and eISS were 28.27 and 32.00, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In our study population, the KTS has similar accuracy in predicting the mortality of multi-trauma patients compared to the eISS.

The new injury severity score underestimates true injury severity in a resource-constrained setting

Background

The new injury severity score (NISS) is widely used within trauma outcomes research. NISS is a composite anatomic severity score derived from the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) protocol. It has been postulated that NISS underestimates trauma severity in resource-constrained settings, which may contribute to erroneous research conclusions. We formally compare NISS to an expert panel's assessment of injury severity in South Africa.

Methods

This was a retrospective chart review of adult trauma patients seen in a tertiary trauma center. Randomly selected medical records were reviewed by an AIS-certified rater who assigned an AIS severity score for each anatomic injury. A panel of five South African trauma experts independently reviewed the same charts and assigned consensus severity scores using a similar scale for comparability. NISS was calculated as the sum of the squares of the three highest assigned severity scores per patient. The difference in average NISS between rater and expert panel was assessed using a multivariable linear mixed effects regression adjusted for patient demographics, injury mechanism and type.

Results

Of 49 patients with 190 anatomic injuries, the majority were male (n = 38), the average age was 36 (range 18-80), with either a penetrating (n = 23) or blunt (n = 26) injury, resulting in 4 deaths. Mean NISS was 16 (SD 15) for the AIS rater compared to 28 (SD 20) for the expert panel. Adjusted for potential confounders, AIS rater NISS was on average 11 points (95 % CI: 7, 15) lower than the expert panel NISS (p < 0.001). Injury type was an effect modifier, with the difference between the AIS rater and expert panel being greater in penetrating versus blunt injury (16 vs. 7; p = 0.04). Crush injury was not well-captured by AIS protocol.

Conclusion

NISS may under-estimate the 'true' injury severity in a middle-income country trauma hospital, particularly for patients with penetrating injury.

The Bidirectionality of Global Surgical Research: The Utility of the Malawi Trauma Score in the United States Trauma Population

INTRODUCTION

Trauma scoring systems provide valuable risk stratification of injured patients. Trauma scoring systems developed in resource-limited settings, such as the Malawi Trauma Score (MTS), are based on readily available clinical information. This study sought to test the performance of the MTS in a United States trauma population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the United States National Trauma Data Bank during 2017-2020. MTS uses alertness score: alert, responds to verbal or painful stimuli, or unresponsive (AVPU), age, sex, presence of a radial pulse, and primary anatomic injury location. MTS and an age-adjusted version reflective of the US age distribution, was evaluated for its performance in predicting crude mortality in the National Trauma Data Bank using receiver operating characteristic analysis. We utilized logistic regression to model the odds ratio of death at a particular MTS cutoff.

RESULTS

A total of 3,833,929 patients were included. The mean age was 49.3 y (sandard deviation 24.4), with a male preponderance (61.1%). Crude mortality was 3.4% (n = 131,452/3,833,929). The area under the curve for the MTS in predicting mortality was 0.87 (95% CI 0.87, 0.88). The area under the curve for a cutoff of 15 was 0.83 (95% CI 0.83, 0.83). An MTS of 15 higher had an odds ratio of death of 46.5 (95% CI 45.9, 47.1), compared to those with a score of 14 or lower.

CONCLUSIONS

MTS has excellent performance as a predictor of mortality in a US trauma population. MTS is simple to calculate and can be estimated in the prehospital setting or the emergency department. Consequently, it may have utility as a triage tool in both high-income trauma systems and resource-limited settings.

Back to the basics: Clinical assessment yields robust mortality prediction and increased feasibility in low resource settings

INTRODUCTION

Mortality prediction aids clinical decision-making and is necessary for trauma quality improvement initiatives. Conventional injury severity scores are often not feasible in low-resource settings. We hypothesize that clinician assessment will be more feasible and have comparable discrimination of mortality compared to conventional scores in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2019, injury data were collected from all injured patients as part of a prospective, four-hospital trauma registry in Cameroon. Clinicians used physical exam at presentation to assign a highest estimated abbreviated injury scale (HEAIS) for each patient. Discrimination of hospital mortality was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves. Discrimination of HEAIS was compared with conventional scores. Data missingness for each score was reported.

RESULTS

Of 9,635 presenting with injuries, there were 206 in-hospital deaths (2.2%). Compared to 97.5% of patients with HEAIS scores, only 33.2% had sufficient data to calculate a Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and 24.8% had data to calculate a Kampala Trauma Score (KTS). Data from 2,328 patients with all scores was used to compare models. Although statistically inferior to the prediction generated by RTS (AUC 0.92-0.98) and KTS (AUC 0.93-0.99), HEAIS provided excellent overall discrimination of mortality (AUC 0.84-0.92). Among 9,269 patients with HEAIS scores was strongly predictive of mortality (AUC 0.93-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Clinical assessment of injury severity using HEAIS strongly predicts hospital mortality and far exceeds conventional scores in feasibility. In contexts where traditional scoring systems are not feasible, utilization of HEAIS could facilitate improved data quality and expand access to quality improvement programming.

Comorbidities, injury severity and complications predict mortality in thoracic trauma

Purpose

Thoracic trauma accounts for 25–50% of posttraumatic mortality. Data on epidemiology of thoracic trauma in Scandinavia and risk factors for mortality are scarce. This study aims to provide an overview of epidemiology, clinical events and risk factors for mortality of patients with severe thoracic injuries.

Methods

A retrospective study including adult thoracic trauma patients with abbreviated injury scale ≥ 3, between 2009 and 2018 at Haukeland University Hospital was performed. Subgroup analyses were performed for specific patient groups: (1) isolated thoracic trauma, (2) polytrauma without Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and (3) polytrauma with TBI. Logistic regression analyses were applied to find risk factors for 30-days mortality. Age, sex, comorbidity polypharmacy score (CPS), trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) and comprehensive complication index (CI) were included in the final model.

Results

Data of 514 patients were analyzed, of which 60 (12%) patients died. Median (IQR) injury severity score (ISS) was 17 (13–27). Data of 463 patients, of which 39 patients died (8%), were included in multivariate analyses. Female sex odds ratio (OR) (2.7, p = 0.04), CPS > 9 (OR 4.8; p = 0.01), TRISS ≤ 50% (OR 44; p < 0.001) and CI ≥ 30 (OR 12.5, p < 0.001) were significant risk factors for mortality. Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate other risk factors.

Conclusion

Comorbidities and associated pharmacotherapies, TRISS, female sex, and complications during admission predict in-hospital mortality after thoracic trauma. Current findings might help to recognize patients at risk of an adverse outcome, and thereby prevent complications.

Trial registration: retrospectively registered

The regional committees for medical and health research ethics file number is 2017/293.

Terlipressin combined with conservative fluid management attenuates hemorrhagic shock-induced acute kidney injury in rats

Hemorrhagic shock (HS), a major cause of trauma-related mortality, is mainly treated by crystalloid fluid administration, typically with lactated Ringer's (LR). Despite beneficial hemodynamic effects, such as the restoration of mean arterial pressure (MAP), LR administration has major side effects, including organ damage due to edema. One strategy to avoid such effects is pre-hospitalization intravenous administration of the potent vasoconstrictor terlipressin, which can restore hemodynamic stability/homeostasis and has anti-inflammatory effects. Wistar rats were subjected to HS for 60 min, at a target MAP of 30-40 mmHg, thereafter being allocated to receive LR infusion at 3 times the volume of the blood withdrawn (liberal fluid management); at 2 times the volume (conservative fluid management), plus terlipressin (10 µg/100 g body weight); and at an equal volume (conservative fluid management), plus terlipressin (10 µg/100 g body weight). A control group comprised rats not subjected to HS and receiving no fluid resuscitation or treatment. At 15 min after fluid resuscitation/treatment, the blood previously withdrawn was reinfused. At 24 h after HS, MAP was higher among the terlipressin-treated animals. Terlipressin also improved post-HS survival and provided significant improvements in glomerular/tubular function (creatinine clearance), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin expression, fractional excretion of sodium, aquaporin 2 expression, tubular injury, macrophage infiltration, interleukin 6 levels, interleukin 18 levels, and nuclear factor kappa B expression. In terlipressin-treated animals, there was also significantly higher angiotensin II type 1 receptor expression and normalization of arginine vasopressin 1a receptor expression. Terlipressin associated with conservative fluid management could be a viable therapy for HS-induced acute kidney injury, likely attenuating such injury by modulating the inflammatory response via the arginine vasopressin 1a receptor.

Interest of the MGAP score on in-hospital trauma patients: Comparison with TRISS, ISS and NISS scores

Trauma scoring systems were created to predict mortality and enhance triage capabilities. However, efficacy of scoring systems to predict mortality and accuracy of originally reported severity thresholds remains uncertain. A single-center, retrospective study was conducted at University of Virginia (UVA), an American College of Surgeons verified Level I trauma center. We compared four scoring systems: MGAP (Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and arterial pressure), Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and Trauma Related Injury Severity Score (TRISS) to predict in-hospital mortality and disposition from the emergency department to higher acuity level of care including mortality (i.e. operating room, intensive care unit, morgue) versus standard floor admission using area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating characteristic analysis. Second, we examined sensitivity of these scores at standard thresholds to determine if adjustments were needed to minimize under-triage (sensitivity ≥95%). TRISS was the best predictor of mortality in a cohort of n = 16,265 with AUC of 0.920 (95% CI: 0.911-0.929, p<0.0001), followed by MGAP with AUC of 0.900 (95% CI: 0.889-0.911, p<0.0001), and finally ISS and NISS (0.830 (95% CI: 0.814-0.847) and 0.827 (95% CI: 0.809-0.844) respectively). NISS was the best predictor of high acuity disposition with an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI: 0.721-0.736, p<0.0001), followed by ISS with AUC of 0.714 (95% CI: 0.707-0.722, p<0.0001), and finally TRISS and MGAP (0.673 (95% CI: 0.665-0.682) and 0.613 (95% CI: 0.604-0.621) respectively (p<0.0001). At historic thresholds, no scoring system displayed adequate sensitivity to predict mortality, with values ranging from 73% for ISS to 80% for NISS. In conclusion, in the reported study cohort, TRISS was the best predictor of mortality while NISS was the best predictor of high acuity disposition. We also stress updating scoring system thresholds to achieve ideal sensitivity, and investigating how scoring systems derived to predict mortality perform when predicting indicators of morbidity such as disposition from the emergency department.

The Kampala Trauma Score: A 20-year track record

ABSTRACT

Quantifying the severity of traumatic injury has been foundational for the standardization of outcomes, quality improvement research, and health policy throughout the evolution of trauma care systems. Many injury severity scores are difficult to calculate and implement, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where human resources are limited. The Kampala Trauma Score (KTS)-a simplification of the Trauma Injury Severity Score-was developed in 2000 to accommodate these settings. Since its development, numerous instances of KTS use have been documented, but extent of adoption is unknown. More importantly, does the KTS remain useful for determining injury severity in LMICs? This review aims to better understand the legacy of the KTS and assess its strengths and weaknesses. Three databases were searched to identify scientific papers concerning the KTS. Google Scholar was searched to identify grey literature. The search returned 357 papers, of which 199 met inclusion criteria. Eighty-five studies spanning 16 countries used the KTS in clinical settings. Thirty-seven studies validated the KTS, assessing its ability to predict outcomes such as mortality or need for admission. Over 80% of these studies reported the KTS equalled or exceeded more complicated scores at predicting mortality. The KTS has stood the test of time, proving itself over the last twenty years as an effective measure of injury severity across numerous contexts. We recommend the KTS as a means of strengthening trauma systems in LMICs and suggest it could benefit high-income trauma systems that do not measure injury severity.

Trauma Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Background  Trauma-related injury causes higher mortality than a combination of prevalent infectious diseases. Mortality secondary to trauma is higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than high-income countries. This review outlines common issues, and potential solutions for those issues, identified in trauma care in LMICs that contribute to poorer outcomes.

Methods  A literature search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar using the search terms “trauma,” “injuries,” and “developing countries.” Articles conducted in a trauma setting in low-income countries (according to the World Bank classification) that discussed problems with management of trauma or consolidated treatment and educational solutions regarding trauma care were included.

Results  Forty-five studies were included. The problem areas broadly identified with trauma care in LMICs were infrastructure, education, and operational measures. We provided some solutions to these areas including algorithm-driven patient management and use of technology that can be adopted in LMICs.

Conclusion  Sustainable methods for the provision of trauma care are essential in LMICs. Improvements in infrastructure and education and training would produce a more robust health care system and likely a reduction in mortality in trauma-related injuries.

Thefeasibility, appropriateness, and applicability of trauma scoring systems in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Background

About 5.8 million people die each year as a result of injuries, and nearly 90% of these deaths occur in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Trauma scoring is a cornerstone of trauma quality improvement (QI) efforts, and is key to organizing and evaluating trauma services. The objective of this review was to assess the appropriateness, feasibility, and QI applicability of traditional trauma scoring systems in LMIC settings.

Materials and methods

This systematic review searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and trauma-focused journals for articles describing the use of a standardized trauma scoring system to characterize holistic health status. Studies conducted in high-income countries (HIC) or describing scores for isolated anatomic locations were excluded. Data reporting a score’s capacity to discriminate mortality, feasibility of implementation, or use for QI were extracted and synthesized.

Results

Of the 896 articles screened, 336 were included. Over half of studies (56%) reported Glasgow Coma Scale, followed by Injury Severity Score (ISS; 51%), Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS; 24%), Revised Trauma Score (RTS; 19%), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS; 14%), and Kampala Trauma Score (7%). While ISS was overwhelmingly predictive of mortality, 12 articles reported limited feasibility of ISS and/or AIS. RTS consistently underestimated injury severity. Over a third of articles (37%) reporting TRISS assessmentsobserved mortality that was greater than that predicted by TRISS. Several articles cited limited human resources as the key challenge to feasibility.

Conclusions

The findings of this review reveal that implementing systems designed for HICs may not be relevant to the burden and resources available in LMICs. Adaptations or alternative scoring systems may be more effective.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42017064600.

Comparative analysis of MGAP, GAP, and RISC2 as predictors of patient outcome and emergency interventional need in emergency room treatment of the injured

PURPOSE

Little is known about the capabilities of triage and risk scores to predict the outcomes of injured patients, other than mortality, or to determine the need for trauma center resources.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered monocenter data on consecutively admitted adult emergency room trauma patients. For each patient, the GAP (Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Pressure), MGAP (mechanism + GAP) scores and the revised injury severity classification 2 (RISC2) were calculated. The predictive performance of these scores was compared for the assessment of trauma severity, hospital resource need and early patient outcomes (area under the receiver operator characteristics, AUROC).

RESULTS

2112 patients were evaluated [mean age 49.1 years; Injury Severity Score (ISS) 9.5]. GAP, MGAP, and RISC2 worked best at predicting mortality (AUROC 93.2, 93.5 and 96.1%, respectively). Other endpoints such as ISS > 15, emergency interventions, disability status, and return-not-home were predicted less precisely by these three scores, better by RISC2 (AUROC range 66.2-88.8%) than by (M)GAP-scores (55.2-84.1%), except for preclinical interventions. Over- and undertriage rates for the (M)GAP scores varied between 27.5-53.4% and 10.4-30%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The almost comparable precision of the three risk scores in the prediction of outcome or interventional need following trauma, and the fact, that the RISC2 can only be calculated following extensive diagnostics, favor earlier applicable (M)GAP scoring in the emergency setting. Overall, due to its easier use, the GAP appears to be the most preferable for the early assessment and triage of the injured in a trauma setting based on this European trauma center experience (NCT02165137).

The search for a simple injury score to reliably discriminate the risk of in-hospital mortality in South Africa

BACKGROUND

The Injury Severity Score and Trauma and Injury Severity Score are used commonly to quantify the severity of injury, but they require comprehensive data collection that is impractical in many low- and middle-income countries . We sought to develop an injury score that is more feasible to implement in low- and middle-income countries with discrimination similar to the Injury Severity Score and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score.

METHODS

Clinical data from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa were used to compare the discrimination of the Injury Severity Score and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score with that of the 5, simple injury scores that rely primarily on physiologic data: Revised Trauma Score for Triage, "Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, Pressure" Score, Kampala Trauma Score, modified Kampala Trauma Score, and "Reversed Shock Index Multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale" Score.

RESULTS

Data for 3,991 patients were analyzed. The Trauma and Injury Severity Score, the Injury Severity Score, and Kampala Trauma Score had similar discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve 0.85, 0.84, and 0.84, respectively). The simple injury scores demonstrated worse discrimination among patients presenting more than 6 hours postinjury, although Kampala Trauma Score maintained the best discrimination of the simple injury scores.

CONCLUSION

In this patient population, Kampala Trauma Score demonstrated discrimination similar to the Injury Severity Score and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score and may be useful to quantify the severity of injury when calculation of the Injury Severity Score or the Trauma and Injury Severity Score is not feasible. Delay in presentation can degrade the discrimination of simple injury scores that rely primarily on physiologic data.

The Malawi trauma score: A model for predicting trauma-associated mortality in a resource-poor setting

BACKGROUND

Globally, traumatic injury is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in low-income countries. Current tools for predicting trauma-associated mortality are often not applicable in low-resource environments due to a lack of diagnostic adjuncts. This study sought to derive and validate a model for predicting mortality that requires only a history and physical exam.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients recorded in the Kamuzu Central Hospital trauma surveillance registry in Lilongwe, Malawi from 2011 through 2014. Using statistical randomization, 80% of patients were used for derivation and 20% were used for validation. Logistic regression modeling was used to derive factors associated with mortality and the Malawi Trauma Score (MTS) was constructed. The model fitness was tested.

RESULTS

62,354 patients are included. Patients are young (mean age 23.0, SD 15.9 years) with a male preponderance (72%). Overall mortality is 1.8%. The MTS is tabulated based on initial mental status (alert, responds to voice, responds only to pain or worse), anatomical location of the most severe injury, the presence or absence of a radial pulse on examination, age, and sex. The score range is 2-32. A mental status exam of only responding to pain or worse, head injury, the absence of a radial pulse, extremes of age, and male sex all conferred a higher probability of mortality. The ROC area under the curve for the derivation cohort and validation cohort were 0.83 (95% CI 0.78, 0.87) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.75, 0.92), respectively. A MTS of 25 confers a 50% probability of death.

CONCLUSIONS

The MTS provides a reliable tool for trauma triage in sub-Saharan Africa and helps risk stratify patient populations. Unlike other models previously developed, its strength is its utility in virtually any environment, while reliably predicting injury- associated mortality.

Trauma registry implementation and operation in low and middle income countries: A scoping review

Injury is a major public health crisis contributing to more than 4.48 million deaths annually. Trauma registries have proven highly effective in reducing injury morbidity and mortality rates in high income countries. They are a critical source of information for injury prevention, benchmarking care, quality improvement, and resource allocation. Historically, low and middle income countries (LMICs) have largely been excluded from trauma registry development due to limited resources. Recently, this has begun to change with low-resource hospitals adopting innovative strategies to implement trauma registries. Nonetheless, dissemination of these strategies remains fragmented. Hospitals looking to develop their own trauma registries have no current, comprehensive resource that summarises the implementation decisions of other registries in similar contexts. This scoping review aims to identify where trauma registries are located in LMICs, bringing up to date previous estimates, and to identify the most common approaches to registry implementation and operation in these settings.

Predicting mortality with the international classification of disease injury severity score using survival risk ratios derived from an Indian trauma population: A cohort study

Background

Trauma is predicted to become the third leading cause of death in India by 2020, which indicate the need for urgent action. Trauma scores such as the international classification of diseases injury severity score (ICISS) have been used with great success in trauma research and in quality programmes to improve trauma care. To this date no valid trauma score has been developed for the Indian population.

Study design

This retrospective cohort study used a dataset of 16047 trauma-patients from four public university hospitals in urban India, which was divided into derivation and validation subsets. All injuries in the dataset were assigned an international classification of disease (ICD) code. Survival Risk Ratios (SRRs), for mortality within 24 hours and 30 days were then calculated for each ICD-code and used to calculate the corresponding ICISS. Score performance was measured using discrimination by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROCC) and calibration by calculating the calibration slope and intercept to plot a calibration curve.

Results

Predictions of 30-day mortality showed an AUROCC of 0.618, calibration slope of 0.269 and calibration intercept of 0.071. Estimates of 24-hour mortality consistently showed low AUROCCs and negative calibration slopes.

Conclusions

We attempted to derive and validate a version of the ICISS using SRRs calculated from an Indian population. However, the developed ICISS-scores overestimate mortality and implementing these scores in clinical or policy contexts is not recommended. This study, as well as previous reports, suggest that other scoring systems might be better suited for India and other Low- and middle-income countries until more data are available.

Expert consensus on the evaluation and diagnosis of combat injuries of the Chinese People's Liberation Army

The accurate assessment and diagnosis of combat injuries are the basis for triage and treatment of combat casualties. A consensus on the assessment and diagnosis of combat injuries was made and discussed at the second annual meeting of the Professional Committee on Disaster Medicine of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA). In this consensus agreement, the massive hemorrhage, airway, respiration, circulation and hypothermia (MARCH) algorithm, which is a simple triage and rapid treatment and field triage score, was recommended to assess combat casualties during the first-aid stage, whereas the abbreviated scoring method for combat casualty and the MARCH algorithm were recommended to assess combat casualties in level II facilities. In level III facilities, combined measures, including a history inquiry, thorough physical examination, laboratory examination, X-ray, and ultrasound examination, were recommended for the diagnosis of combat casualties. In addition, corresponding methods were recommended for the recognition of casualties needing massive transfusions, assessment of firearm wounds, evaluation of mangled extremities, and assessment of injury severity in this consensus.