ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2025
Trauma outcomes in elderly patients referring to the emergency department via the rapid emergency medicine score, injury severity score, and geriatric trauma outcome score indices.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive Performance of Trauma Scoring Systems for Mortality in Patients with High-Energy Trauma in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Isolated Scalp Laceration in the Elderly: Association Between Age and Red Blood Cell Transfusion Despite Anatomically Minor Injury.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate early risk stratification of older trauma patients is essential for appropriate triage and resource allocation. We compared the discriminatory performance of three prognostic scores-Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and Glasgow Coma Scale-based Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS)-for predicting in-hospital mortality in trauma patients aged 65 years and older.
methodsA single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted, including all trauma patients aged 65 years or older admitted to the Emergency Department of Imam Khomeini Hospital (Sari, Iran) between September 2019 and March 2023 (n = 296). REMS, ISS, and GTOS were computed from registry and chart data. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) and compared with DeLong's test. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to estimate adjusted associations and predictive performance. Pre-specified subgroup analyses included patients ≥ 75 years and those with ISS ≥ 9.
resultsThis study examined 296 patients with trauma. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 6.0% (18/296). AUCs for predicting in-hospital mortality were: REMS 0.949 (95% CI 0.898-1.00), GTOS 0.928 (95% CI 0.881-0.949), and ISS 0.860 (95% CI 0.770-0.949). The overall difference in discrimination across scores was statistically significant (p = 0.031). In multivariable analysis, each one-point increase in REMS was associated with higher odds of in-hospital death (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.45-1.58). Observed in-hospital mortality by REMS strata was: <8 = 1.2%, 8-10 = 8.3%, and ≥ 11 = 70.6%. GTOS maintained superior performance in subgroup analyses than REMS, including patients aged 75 years or older and those with an ISS of 9 or higher.
conclusionIn this cohort of older trauma patients, REMS demonstrated superior discriminatory ability for in-hospital mortality compared with GTOS and ISS, and may serve as a rapid, bedside tool to identify high-risk older trauma patients in the emergency department. External validation in larger, multi-center cohorts is recommended before broad implementation.
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.