ArticleCureus2024
The Predictive Accuracy of the New Trauma Score and the Revised Trauma Score in Predicting the Mortality of Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital in Karachi.
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.
- Utility of the Shock Index as a Prognostic Predictor in Patients Undergoing Emergency Surgery for Trauma: A Single Center, Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Trauma Scoring Systems for Predicting Mortality in Emergency Department Patients with Traffic-Related Multiple Trauma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Background Trauma is a major public health issue, causing disease and death globally. Injuries can range from mild to severe, requiring different levels of medical attention from a skilled team. Objectives To predict the accuracy of the new trauma score (NTS) and the revised trauma score (RTS) for predicting the mortality of patients presenting in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital in Karachi. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in the Emergency Department of Civil Hospital Karachi (CHK), Pakistan, for six months and included 366 patients. Patients with blunt, traumatic, crush, or penetration injuries were included in this study. All patients were given a score according to the NTS and RTS. Results The median age of the study's participants was 31.90 ± 7.46 years. A mortality rate of 4.64% was noted. The NTS demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 97.5%, a sensitivity of 88.2%, a specificity of 98%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 68.2%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.4% for predicting mortality. The RTS exhibited a diagnostic accuracy of 99.1%, a sensitivity of 88.2%, a specificity of 99.7%, a PPV of 93.8%, and an NPV of 99.4%. When the NTS and RTS were combined, they exhibited a diagnostic accuracy of 97.5%, a sensitivity of 82.5%, a specificity of 98%, a PPV of 68.2%, and an NPV of 99.4% for predicting mortality. Conclusion As a result, we conclude that both RTS and NTS were equally useful in predicting hospitalization, morbidity, the need for mechanical ventilation, and mortality.
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.