Cross-validation of two prognostic trauma scores in severely injured patients.
Outcome
Prognosis
Score
Severe injuries
Survival
Trauma registry
Journal
European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society
ISSN: 1863-9941
Titre abrégé: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101313350
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
27
01
2020
accepted:
07
04
2020
pubmed:
24
4
2020
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
24
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Trauma scoring systems are important tools for outcome prediction and severity adjustment that informs trauma quality assessment and research. Discrimination and precision of such systems is tested in validation studies. The German TraumaRegister DGU Severe trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 9 documented in 2015 and 2016 were selected in both registries (primary admissions only). The predictive scores from each registry were applied to the selected data sets. Observed and predicted mortality were compared to assess precision; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used for discrimination. Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic was calculated for calibration. A subgroup analysis including patients treated in intensive care unit (ICU) was also carried out. From TR-DGU, 40,638 patients were included (mortality 11.7%). The RISC II predicted mortality was 11.2%, while PS14 predicted 16.9% mortality. From TARN, 64,622 patients were included (mortality 9.7%). PS14 predicted 10.6% mortality, while RISC II predicted 17.7%. Despite the identical cutoff of ISS ≥ 9, patient groups from both registries showed considerable difference in need for intensive care (88% versus 18%). Subgroup analysis of patients treated on ICU showed nearly identical values for observed and predicted mortality using RISC II. Each score performed well within its respective registry, but when applied to the other registry a decrease in performance was observed. Part of this loss of performance could be explained by different development data sets: the RISC II is mainly based on patients treated in an ICU, while the PS14 includes cases mainly cared for outside ICU with more moderate injury severity. This is according to the respective inclusion criteria of the two registries. External validations of prediction models between registries are needed, but may show that prediction models are not fully transferable to other health-care settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32322925
doi: 10.1007/s00068-020-01373-6
pii: 10.1007/s00068-020-01373-6
pmc: PMC8629869
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1837-1845Informations de copyright
© 2020. The Author(s).
Références
Emerg Med J. 2015 Dec;32(12):933-8
pubmed: 26493123
Injury. 2015 Jan;46(1):86-93
pubmed: 25195181
J Trauma. 1983 Mar;23(3):185-201
pubmed: 6834440
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Dec;73(6):1607-13
pubmed: 23188250
Crit Care. 2014 Sep 05;18(5):476
pubmed: 25394596
J Trauma. 1990 Nov;30(11):1356-65
pubmed: 2231804
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2008 Aug 28;16:7
pubmed: 18957069
Emergencias. 2018 Abr;30(2):98-104
pubmed: 29547232
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2009 Oct;35(5):437-47
pubmed: 26815209
Br J Surg. 2018 Apr;105(5):513-519
pubmed: 29465764