ArticleEmergency (Tehran, Iran)2017
Worthing Physiological Score vs Revised Trauma Score in Outcome Prediction of Trauma patients; a Comparative Study.
Article in Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric properties of the 12-item WHODAS applied through phone survey: an experience in PERSIAN Traffic Cohort.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Revised Trauma Score, MGAP, and GAP scoring systems in predicting mortality of adult trauma patients in a low-resource setting.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Glasgow Coma Scale Versus Physiologic Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcome of ICU admitted Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- The Value of Physiological Scoring Criteria in Predicting the In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Patients; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2021Review
- A Comparison between the Ability of Revised Trauma Score and Kampala Trauma Score in Predicting Mortality; a Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2019Review
- Glasgow Coma Scale and FOUR Score in Predicting the Mortality of Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Emergency (Tehran, Iran) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAwareness about the outcome of trauma patients in the emergency department (ED) has become a topic of interest. Accordingly, the present study aimed to compare the rapid trauma score (RTS) and worthing physiological scoring system (WPSS) in predicting in-hospital mortality and poor outcome of trauma patients.
methodsIn this comparative study trauma patients brought to five EDs in different cities of Iran during the year 2016 were included. After data collection, discriminatory power and calibration of the models were assessed and compared using STATA 11.
results2148 patients with the mean age of 39.50±17.27 years were included (75.56% males). The AUC of RTS and WPSS models for prediction of mortality were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.90) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.94), respectively (p=0.006). RTS had a sensitivity of 71.54 (95% CI: 62.59-79.13) and a specificity of 97.38 (95% CI: 96.56-98.01) in prediction of mortality. These measures for the WPSS were 87.80 (95% CI: 80.38-92.78) and 83.45 (95% CI: 81.75-85.04), respectively. The AUC of RTS and WPSS in predicting poor outcome were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.85) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.92), respectively (p<0.0001).
conclusionThe findings showed a higher prognostic value for the WPSS model in predicting mortality and severe disabilities in trauma patients compared to the RTS model. Both models had good overall performance in prediction of mortality and poor outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28286838PMC5325901What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.