ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2022
The clinical effectiveness of the STUMBL score for the management of ED patients with blunt chest trauma compared to clinical evaluation alone.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Validation of the STUMBL Score for Risk Stratification in Emergency Department Patients With Blunt Thoracic Trauma: A Prospective Observational Study in Iraq
STUMBL (Study of the Management of Blunt Chest Wall Trauma) vs TTSS (Thoracic Trauma Severity Score) in Prediction of Morbidity and Mortality Rate of Blunt Chest Trauma
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical prediction models for the management of blunt chest trauma in the emergency department: a systematic review.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Improving Blunt Thoracic Trauma Prognosis: Validation of the Study of the Management of Blunt Chest Wall Trauma Score against Injury Severity Score in an Indonesian Tertiary Hospital.Journal of chest surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Validation of the study of the management of blunt chest wall trauma (STUMBL) score for predicting in-hospital complications in patients with blunt chest trauma.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The STUMBL (STUdy of the Management of BLunt chest wall trauma) score is a new prognostic score to assist ED (Emergency Department) decision making in the management of blunt chest trauma. This is a retrospective cohort chart review study conducted in a UK University Hospital ED seeing 120,000 patients a year, comparing its performance characteristics to ED clinician judgement. All blunt chest trauma patients that presented to our ED over a 6-month period were included. Patients were excluded if age < 18, if they had immediate life-threatening injury, required critical care admission for other injuries or in case of missing identification data. Primary endpoint was complication defined as any of lower respiratory tract infection, pulmonary consolidation, empyema, pneumothorax, haemothorax, splenic or hepatic injury and 30-day mortality. Clinician judgement (clinician decision to admit) and STUMBL score were compared using the receiver-operating curve (ROC) and sensitivity analysis. Three hundred and sixty-nine patients were included. ED clinicians admitted 95 of 369 patients. ED clinician decision to admit had a sensitivity of 83.9% and specificity of 86.0% for predicting complications. STUMBL score ≥ 11 had a sensitivity of 79.0% and specificity of 77.9% for the same and would have led to 117 of 369 patients being admitted. Area under the curve (AUC) of STUMBL score and ED clinician decision to admit was 0.84 (95% CI 0.78-0.90) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.91), respectively. Our findings show that a STUMBL score ≥ 11 performs no better than ED clinician judgement and leads to more patients being admitted to hospital.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.