ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Identification of major trauma using the simplified abbreviated injury scale to estimate the injury severity score: a diagnostic accuracy and validation study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trauma-related mortality in a European region with an intermediately mature trauma system: a comprehensive population-based analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Observational
- Limits of Transfusion Burden as a Predictor of Mortality in Severely Injured Trauma Patients.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2026Article
- Application of GHOST-CAP strategy combined with multimodal monitoring in the treatment of a patient with polytrauma complicated by severe traumatic brain injury: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Venous thromboembolism in patients with traumatic pelvic and acetabular fractures: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Traumatic Brain Injury Severity Using the Abbreviated Injury Scale and the Injury Severity Score: A Retrospective Study in Two Eastern European Centers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Glasgow coma scale, motor component, eye component, and simplified motor scale for predicting trauma outcomes: a 13-year multicenter retrospective cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) grade the severity of injuries and are useful for trauma audit and benchmarking. However, AIS coding is complex and requires specifically trained staff. A simple yet reliable scoring system is needed. The aim of this study was two-fold. First, to develop and validate a simplified AIS (sAIS) chart centred on the most frequent injuries for use by non-trained healthcare professionals. Second, to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the sAIS (index test) to calculate the simplified ISS (sISS) to identify major trauma, compared with the reference AIS (rAIS) to calculate the reference ISS (rISS).
methodsThis retrospective study used data (2013-2014) from the Northern French Alps Trauma Registry to develop and internally validate the sAIS. External validation was performed with data from the Trauma Registry of Acute Care of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland (2019-2021). Both datasets comprised a random sample of 100 injured patients. Following the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2015 guidelines, all patients completed the rAIS and the sAIS. The sISS and the rISS were calculated using the sAIS and the rAIS, respectively. Accuracy was evaluated with the mean difference between the sISS and the rISS and the Pearson correlation coefficient. A clinically relevant equivalence limit was set at ± 4 ISS points. Precision was analyzed using Bland-Altmann plots with 95% limits of agreement.
resultsAccuracy was good. The mean ISS difference of 0.97 (95% CI, -0.03 to 1.97) in the internal validation dataset and - 1.77 (95% CI, - 3.04 to 0.50) in the external validation dataset remained within the equivalence limit. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.93 in the internal validation dataset (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) and 0.82 in the external validation dataset (95% CI, 0.75-0.88). The limits of agreement were wider than the predetermined relevant range.
conclusionsThe sAIS is accurate, but slightly imprecise in calculating the ISS. The development of this scale increases the possibilities to use a scoring system for severely injured patients in settings with a reduced availability of the AIS.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered.
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.