Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32201699›Full record

ArticleBulletin of emergency and trauma2020

A Comparative Study of Injury Severity Scales as Predictors of Mortality in Trauma Patients: Which Scale Is the Best?

Mahnaz Yadollahi, Ali Kashkooe, Reza Rezaiee, Kazem Jamali, Mohammad Hadi Niakan

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of emergency and trauma, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The accuracy of the injury severity score in patients below the age of 18 years, a trauma registry data study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Predicting mortality in adults hospitalized with multiple trauma: Can the BIG score estimate risk?Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2025
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Evaluation of the predictive effects of trauma scoring systems in colorectal injuries.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mahnaz YadollahiTrauma Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Ali KashkooeStudent Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Reza RezaieeTrauma Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Kazem JamaliTrauma Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Mohammad Hadi NiakanTrauma Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the injury severity scales as predictors of mortality in trauma patients to search for the best scale.

methodsIn a prospective cohort study and systematical random sampling conducted from March to September 2017, trauma patients over the age of 13 years were enrolled. The investigated variables were age, gender, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, injured body region, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), injury severity score (ISS), revised trauma score (RTS), trauma injury severity score (TRISS) and the outcome.

resultsTotally, 1410 trauma patients were followed up, out of which 68.5% were male. The participants' mean age was 43.5±20.88 years. After adjusting the confounding effects, age over 60 years (OR=7.38, CI [3.91-13.93]), GCS<8 (OR=6.5, CI [2.38-18.16]), RTS<7.6 (OR=6.04, CI [2-13.7]), and TRISS<0.9 (OR=3.09, CI [1.39-6.88]) were determined as the most significant predictor variables for in-hospital mortality. The results of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve revealed that TRISS had the highest area under the curve in comparison to other tests that were evaluated. Furthermore, TRISS had the highest sensitivity and specificity for scores higher than 96.15. By contrast, the sensitivity and specificity of GCS decreased for scores higher than 5.5.

conclusionOur results showed that TRISS, RTS, GCS, and ISS were all very effective approaches for evaluating prognosis, mortality and probable complications in trauma patients; thus, these systems of injury evaluation and scoring are recommended to facilitate treatment. TRISS, RTS, and ISS had almost the same sensitivity that was higher than GCS, but GCS had the most specificity. Finally, TRISS was selected as the most efficient scale for predicting mortality.

Indexed as

InjuryInjury Severity ScoreMortalityRevised Trauma ScoreTrauma Injury Severity Score

Identifiers

PMID32201699
PMCPMC7071938
OpenAlexW3010596913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.