Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35819474›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2024

Polytrauma scoring revisited: prognostic validity and usability in daily clinical practice.

Robert Girshausen, Klemens Horst, Christian Herren, Felix Bläsius, Frank Hildebrand, Hagen Andruszkow

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Further refinement of high standards of care- focus on polytrauma.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  5. Letter to the editor on: "Polytrauma scoring revisited: prognostic validity and usability in daily clinical practice".European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Robert GirshausenDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery and Harald Tscherne Laboratory, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Klemens HorstDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery and Harald Tscherne Laboratory, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Christian HerrenDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery and Harald Tscherne Laboratory, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Felix BläsiusDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery and Harald Tscherne Laboratory, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Frank HildebrandDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery and Harald Tscherne Laboratory, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Hagen AndruszkowDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery and Harald Tscherne Laboratory, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. handruszkow@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5582-5745

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeScores are widely used for the assessment of injury severity and therapy guidance in severely injured patients. They differ vastly regarding complexity, applicability, and prognostic accuracy. The objective of this study was to compare well-established with more recently developed trauma scores as well as intensive care unit (ICU) scores.

methodsRetrospective analysis of severely injured patients treated at a level I trauma centre from 2010 to 2015. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Age ≥ 18 years, Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 and ICU treatment. Primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Several scores (ISS, APACHE II, RTS, Marshall Score, SOFA, NISS, RISC II, EAC and PTGS) were assessed to determine their predictive quality for mortality. Statistical analysis included correlation analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC).

results444 patients were included. 71.8% were males, mean age was 51 ± 20.26 years. 97.4% sustained a blunt trauma. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) revealed RISC II (0.92) as strongest predictor regarding mortality, followed by APACHE II (0.81), Marshall score (0.69), SOFA (0.70), RTS (0.66), NISS (0.62), PTGS (0.61) and EAC (0.60). ISS did not reach statistical significance.

conclusionsRISC II provided the strongest predictive capability for mortality. In comparison, more simple scores focusing on injury pattern (ISS, NISS), physiological abnormalities (RTS, EAC), or a combination of both (PTGS) only provided inferior mortality prediction. Established ICU scores like APACHE II, SOFA and Marshall score were proven to be helpful tools in severely injured trauma patients.

Indexed as

APACHEInjury Severity ScoreMultiple TraumaOrgan Dysfunction ScoresAdultAgedFemaleHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC CurveClinical assessmentPolytraumaSevere traumaTrauma mortalityTrauma scoring

Identifiers

PMID35819474
PMCPMC11249471

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.