Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36482909›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Shock index, modified shock index, age shock index score, and reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale predicting clinical outcomes in traumatic brain injury: Evidence from a 10-year analysis in a single center.

Po-Chen Lin, Chi-Yuan Liu, I-Shiang Tzeng, Tsung-Han Hsieh, Chun-Yu Chang, Yueh-Tseng Hou, Yu-Long Chen, Da-Sen Chien, Giou-Teng Yiang, Meng-Yu Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

10 authors.

Po-Chen LinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chi-Yuan LiuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
I-Shiang TzengDepartment of Research, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Tsung-Han HsiehDepartment of Research, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chun-Yu ChangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Yueh-Tseng HouDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Yu-Long ChenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Da-Sen ChienDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Giou-Teng YiangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Meng-Yu WuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Early identification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients at a high risk of mortality is very important. This study aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of four scoring systems in TBI, including shock index (SI), modified shock index (MSI), age-adjusted shock index (ASI), and reverse shock index multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale (rSIG). Patients and methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a registry from the Taipei Tzu Chi trauma database. Totally, 1,791 patients with TBI were included. We investigated the accuracy of four major shock indices for TBI mortality. In the subgroup analysis, we also analyzed the effects of age, injury mechanism, underlying diseases, TBI severity, and injury severity. Results: The predictive accuracy of rSIG was significantly higher than those of SI, MSI, and ASI in all the patients [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), 0.710 vs. 0.495 vs. 0.527 vs. 0.598], especially in the moderate/severe TBI (AUROC, 0.625 vs. 0.450 vs. 0.476 vs. 0.529) and isolated head injury populations (AUROC 0.689 vs. 0.472 vs. 0.504 vs. 0.587). In the subgroup analysis, the prediction accuracy of mortality of rSIG was better in TBI with major trauma [Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16], motor vehicle collisions, fall injury, and healthy and cardiovascular disease population. rSIG also had a better prediction effect, as compared to SI, MSI, and ASI, both in the non-geriatric (age < 65 years) and geriatric (age ≥ 65 years). Conclusion: rSIG had a better prediction accuracy for mortality in the overall TBI population than SI, MSI, and ASI. Although rSIG have better accuracy than other indices (ROC values indicate poor to moderate accuracy), the further clinical studies are necessary to validate our results.

Indexed as

mortalitypredictionrSIGshock indextraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID36482909
PMCPMC9723330

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.