ArticleCureus2024
Injury Severity Score Precision for Determining Undertriage in Trauma Consultation Patients: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives Because the Injury Severity Score (ISS) has not been fully endorsed for determining trauma undertriage, we investigated its precision. This study aimed to 1) compute undertriage proportions using the Peng and Cribari methods; 2) compare risk conditions and outcomes for patients with ISS ≥16 who were classified according to an activation or consultation status; 3) calculate proportions of patients with ISS ≥16, without and with qualifications (death or increased length of stay), as potential categories for assessing undertriage in trauma consultation patients; and 4) compute the undertriage proportion among trauma consultation patients by using an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)-Glasgow Coma Scale score (GCS)-ISS categorization method and employing targeted electronic medical record audits (EMRA). Methodology Age, ISS, GCS, activation status (full, partial, or consultation), injury mechanism, death, intensive care stay, and hospital stay were obtained from the trauma registry. An adverse outcome (AO) was death, intensive care stay ≥two days, or hospital stay >five days. ICH status, clinical details, and comorbidity were obtained from EMRA. Each consultation patient was assigned to an ICH-GCS-ISS category with targeted EMRA. Results Of 2,076 consecutive trauma center admissions, 405 had full activation, 640 had partial activation, and 1,031 had consultation. Using Peng and Cribari methods, undertriage proportions were 64.2% and 21.7%, respectively. Compared with consultation patients with ISS ≥16, full or partial activation patients with ISS ≥16 had much higher proportions (p<0.0001) of non-fall mechanisms, age <70 years, GCS <15, ISS ≥25, mortality, intensive care admission, and hospital stay >five days. The proportions of consultation nonqualified ISS ≥16 undertriage and ISS ≥16-AO undertriage were 21.1% (218 ISS ≥16÷1,031) and 9.8% (101 ISS ≥16-AO÷1,031), respectively. Of the 101 ISS ≥16-AO patients, 79.2% were aged ≥70 years or had comorbidity. The consultation ISS ≥16-death undertriage proportion was 1.5% (15 ISS ≥16-deaths÷1,031). The ICH-GCS-ISS consultation categorization undertriage proportion was 11.0% (113÷1,031). ICH-GCS-ISS undertriage proportions were as follows: ICH with GCS <15, 77/77; no ICH with ISS ≥16 (EMRA for major injury), 14/60; scene ICH & GCS 15 & ISS ≥16, 0/43; transfer ICH & GCS 15 & ISS ≥16 (EMRA for intracranial mass effect), 22/69; no ICH with ISS <16, 0/629; and ICH & GCS 15 & ISS <16, 0/153. Conclusions Because ISS ≥16 consultation and activation patient risk conditions and outcomes are dissimilar, commingling these cohorts for undertriage assessment is dubious. Death and increased length of stay-qualified ISS ≥16 with EMRA can be useful to assess undertriage in trauma consultation patients. Because most ISS ≥16-AO consultations were elderly or had comorbidity, the benefit of trauma activation is uncertain. Consultation ICH-GCS-ISS categorization with EMRA was needed in only 12%, indicating a relatively facile undertriage method.
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.