ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Are the same parameters measured at admission and in the ICU comparable in their predictive values for complication and mortality in severely injured patients?
Article in European journal of medical research, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNumerous studies have investigated variables that predict mortality and complications following severe trauma. These studies, however, mainly focus on admission values or a single variable. The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive quality of multiple routine clinical measurements (at admission and in the ICU).
methodsRetrospective cohort study of severely injured patients treated at one Level 1 academic trauma centre. INCLUSION CRITERIA: severe injury (ISS ≥ 16 points), primary admission and complete data set. Exclusion criteria end-of-life treatment based on advanced directive, secondary transferred patients. PRIMARY OUTCOME: mortality, pneumonia, sepsis. Routine clinical parameters were stratified based on measurement timepoint into Group TB (Trauma Bay, admission) and into Group intensive care unit (ICU, 72 h after admission). Prediction of complications and mortality were calculated using two prediction methods: adaptive boosting (AdaBoost, artificial intelligence, AI) and LASSO regression analysis.
resultsInclusion of 3668 cases. Overall mean age 45.5 ± 20 years, mean ISS 28.2 ± 15.1 points, incidence pneumonia 19.0%, sepsis 14.9%, death from haemorrhagic shock 4.1%, death from multiple organ failure 1.9%, overall mortality rate 26.8%. Highest predictive value for complications for Group TB include abbreviated injury scale (AIS), new injury severity score (NISS) and systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) score. Highest predictive quality for complications for Group ICU include late lactate values, haematocrit, leukocytes, and CRP. Sensitivity and specificity of late prediction models using a 25% cutoff were 73.61% and 76.24%, respectively.
conclusionsThe predictive quality of routine clinical measurements strongly depends on the timepoint of the measurement. Upon admission, the injury severity and affected anatomical regions are more predictive, while during the ICU stay, laboratory parameters are better predictor of adverse outcomes. Therefore, the dynamics of pathophysiologic responses should be taken into consideration, especially during decision making of secondary definitive surgical interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (retrospective cohort study).
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.