ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2024
Evaluation of emergency department admissions of mass casualty patients using the revised trauma score, injury severity score, and trauma and injury severity score.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Injury patterns and predictors of surgical intervention in road traffic accident patients presenting to the emergency department.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Glasgow Coma Scale, Revised Trauma Score, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score and the Modified Early Warning Score to predict the 7-day in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury: a retrospective cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Association of the Revised Trauma Score with Mortality and Prehospital LSI Among Trauma and Non-Trauma Patients.Prehospital emergency care · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a need for studies evaluating prognostic scoring systems in mass trauma patients in conflict regions to predict patient prognosis for emergency surgical prioritization. In this study, we aimed to evaluate scoring systems such as the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in trauma patients admitted due to mass trauma in Northern Syria.
methodsThis study was a retrospective evaluation of patients admitted due to mass trauma to the emergency departments of hospitals in Northern Syria. The diagnostic efficiency of RTS, ISS, and TRISS scoring systems was evaluated in these admissions in the first half of 2021.
resultsThe most common causes of mass trauma were bomb blast (67.3%), gunshot (28.8%), and 14 (3.9%) patients admitted with other causes. When the odds ratio (OR) was analyzed, a one-unit increase in the RTS score increased the odds of survival by a factor of 6.133, and a one-unit increase in the TRISS score increased the odds of survival by a factor of 1.057. Differently, it was found that each 1-unit increase in ISS decreased the patient's probability of survival by 0.856 units. When RTS, TRISS, and ISS scores were analyzed, the area under the ROC curve was statistically significant for all of them (p<0.001) and all of them had a diagnostic value for mortality with sensitivities of 99.0%, 94.8%, and 91.9%; specificities of 87.8%, 90.5%, and 88.6; AUC of 0.958, 0.975, and 0.958, respectively.
conclusionThe use of trauma scoring systems, especially TRISS, may be useful for prioritizing patients in mass casualty settings in the presence of overcapacity.
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.