ArticleInjury2025
Establishing thresholds for shock index in children to identify major trauma.
Article in Injury, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating age-based vital sign cutoffs for pediatric trauma: a multicenter evaluation of the Japanese trauma data bank.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn abnormal shock index (SI) is associated with greater injury severity among children with trauma. We sought to empirically-derive age-adjusted SI cutpoints associated with major trauma in children, and to compare the accuracy of these cutpoints to existing criteria for pediatric SI.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using the 2021 National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) Participant Use File. We included injured children (<18 years), excluding patients with traumatic arrests, mechanical ventilation upon hospital presentation, and inter-facility transfers. Our outcome was major trauma defined by the standardized triage assessment tool (STAT) criteria. Our exposure of interest was the SI. We empirically-derived upper and lower cutpoints for the SI using age-adjusted Z-scores. We compared the performance of these to the SI, pediatric-adjusted (SIPA), and the Pediatric SI (PSI). We validated the performance of the cutpoints in the 2019 NTDB.
resultsWe included 64,326 and 64,316 children in the derivation and validation samples, of whom 4.9 % (derivation) and 4.0 % (validation) experienced major trauma. The empirically-derived age-adjusted SI cutpoints had a sensitivity of 43.2 % and a specificity of 79.4 % for major trauma in the validation sample. The sensitivity of the PSI for major trauma was 33.9 %, with a specificity of 90.7 % among children 1-17 years of age. The sensitivity of the SIPA was 37.4 %, with a specificity of 87.8 % among children 4-16 years of age. Evaluated using logistic regression, patients with an elevated age-adjusted SI had 3.97 greater odds (95 % confidence interval [CI] 3.63-4.33) of major trauma compared to those with a normal age-adjusted SI. Patients with a depressed SI had 1.55 greater odds (95 % CI 1.36-1.78) of major trauma. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for the empirically-derived model (0.62, 95 % CI 0.61-0.63) was similar to the AUROC for PSI (0.62, 95 % CI 0.61-0.63); both of which were greater than the SIPA model (0.58, 95 % CI 0.57-0.59).
conclusionAge-adjusted SI cutpoints demonstrated a mild gain in sensitivity compared to existing measures. However, our findings suggest that the SI alone has a limited role in the identification of major trauma in children.
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.