Observational studyMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2023
Prehospital Trauma Scoring Systems for Evaluation of Trauma Severity and Prediction of Outcomes.
Observational study in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive Performance of Trauma Scoring Systems for Mortality in Patients with High-Energy Trauma in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Observational
- Early medical care and trauma management in mass casualties from major explosive accidents: a retrospective analysis and recommendations.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Assessing and Addressing Model Trustworthiness Trade-offs in Trauma Triage.International journal of artificial intelligence tools : architectures, languages, algorithms · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTrauma scoring systems in prehospital settings are supposed to ensure the most appropriate in-hospital treatment of the injured. AIM OF THE STUDY: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the CRAMS scale (circulation, respiration, abdomen, motor and speech), RTS score (revised trauma score), MGAP (mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, age, arterial pressure) and GAP (Glasgow Coma Scale, age, arterial pressure) scoring systems in prehospital settings in order to evaluate trauma severity and to predict the outcome. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective, observational study was conducted. For every trauma patient, a questionnaire was initially filled in by a prehospital doctor and these data were subsequently collected by the hospital.
resultsThe study included 307 trauma patients with an average age of 51.7 ± 20.9. Based on the ISS (injury severity score), severe trauma was diagnosed in 50 (16.3%) patients. MGAP had the best sensitivity/specificity ratio when the obtained values indicated severe trauma. The sensitivity and specificity were 93.4 and 62.0%, respectively, for an MGAP value of 22. MGAP and GAP were strongly correlated with each other and were statistically significant in predicting the outcome of treatment (OR 2.23; 95% Cl 1.06-4.70;
conclusionMGAP and GAP, in prehospital settings, had higher sensitivity and specificity when identifying patients with a severe trauma and predicting an unfavorable outcome than other scoring systems.
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.