ArticleBMC emergency medicine2024
New Trauma Score versus Kampala Trauma Score II in predicting mortality following road traffic crash: a prospective multi-center cohort study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06732752 (Prospective Validation of the New Trauma Score), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Prospective Validation of the New Trauma Score (NTS) for Superior Prediction of Mortality Compared to the Revised Trauma Score
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Rural Trauma Team Development Education on Prehospital Time, Referral-to-Dispatch Interval, and Neurological and Musculoskeletal Injury Outcomes: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR human factors · 2026Trial
- Understanding Barriers to Effective Injury Care by Medical Trainees and Traffic Law Enforcement First Responders in Low-Income Contexts in Uganda (Motor Registry Project Part 2): Convergent Mixed Methods Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Pediatric trauma management in low-resource emergency departments: from first contact to safe disposition - a narrative review.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Delays in seeking and reaching care for injured patients in four low-income and middle-income countries: a cohort study.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Predictive factors of mortality in patients with abdominal trauma.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMortality due to injuries disproportionately impact low income countries. Knowledge of who is at risk of poor outcomes is critical to guide resource allocation and prioritization of severely injured. Kampala Trauma Score (KTS), developed in 1996 and last modified in 2002 as KTS II, is still widely being used to predict injury outcomes in resource-limited settings with no further revisions in the past two decades, despite ongoing criticism of some of its parameters. The New Trauma Score (NTS), a recent development in 2017, has shown potential in mortality prediction, but a dearth of evidence exist regarding its performance in the African population.
objectivesTo compare NTS to the modified Kampala Trauma Score (KTS II) in the prediction of 30-day mortality, and injury severity amongst patients sustaining road traffic crashes in Ugandan low-resource settings.
methodsMulti-center prospective cohort study of patients aged 15 years and above. Of the 194 participants, 85.1% were males with a mean age of 31.7 years. NTS and KTS II were determined for each participant within 30-minutes of admission and followed-up for 30 days to determine their injury outcomes. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for predicting mortality were compared between the two trauma scores using SPSS version 22. Ethical clearance: Research and Ethics Committee of Kampala International University Western Campus (Ref No: KIU-2022-125).
resultsThe injury severity classifications based on NTS vs. KTS II were mild (55.7% vs. 25.8%), moderate (29.9% vs. 30.4%), and severe (14.4% vs. 43.8%). The mortality rates for each injury severity category based on NTS vs. KTS II were mild (0.9% v 0%), moderate (20.7% vs. 5.1%), and severe (50% vs. 28.2%). The AUC was 0.87 for NTS (95% CI 0.808-0.931) vs. 0.86 (95% CI 0.794-0.919) for KTS II respectively. The sensitivity of NTS vs. KTS II in predicting mortality was 92.6% (95% CI: 88.9-96.3) vs. 70.4% (95% CI: 63.0-77.8) while the specificity was 70.7% (95% CI: 64.2-77.2) vs. 78.4% (95% CI: 72.1-84.7) at cut off points of 17 for NTS and 6 for KTS II respectively.
conclusionsNTS was more sensitive but its specificity for purposes of 30-day mortality prediction was lower compared to KTS II. Thus, in low-resourced trauma environment where time constraints and pulse oximeters are of concern, KTS II remains superior to NTS.
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.