ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Performance of five trauma scoring systems in predicting in-hospital outcomes in geriatric trauma: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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.
- Early Risk Stratification of Severe Trauma in the Emergency Department: Integrating Clinical Scoring Systems, Dynamic Biomarkers, and Artificial Intelligence-A Narrative Review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Review
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
backgroundPredicting unfavorable outcomes in geriatric trauma patients (GTPs) remains a significant challenge, as trauma remains a leading cause of mortality in this population. This study aimed to compare the performance of five trauma scoring systems, including three age-specific models, in predicting in-hospital mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) among Iranian GTPs.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included trauma patients ≥ 65 years from July 29, 2016 to September 19, 2024. The GERtality score, Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS), GTOS II, Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS), and adjusted TRISS (aTRISS) were calculated for each patient. We evaluated the statistical performance of these scores using the concordance statistic (C-index) and assessed calibration by comparing observed versus predicted mortality risks through calibration plots. Clinical usefulness was evaluated with decision curve analysis (DCA) and net benefit (NB).
resultsOf 1,081 GTPs, a total of 86 (7.9%) required MV, and 93 individuals (8.6%) were deceased during hospitalization. The GERtality score (C-index = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.93) and GTOS (C-index = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.84 to 0.93) demonstrated the highest predictive value for in-hospital mortality. For MV, GERtality and GTOS exhibited the highest predictive performance (C-index = 0.82). The calibration slopes for all scoring systems were close to 1.0 (range: 0.97 to 0.99), with confidence intervals including 1.0, indicating good agreement between predicted and observed mortality risks. Based on decision curve analysis, the GERtality score demonstrated the highest NB across a broad range of threshold probabilities (approximately 0.05 to 0.75), supporting its superior clinical utility in predicting both mortality and MV.
conclusionsAlthough all scoring systems demonstrated acceptable performance, the GERtality score exhibited the highest predictive value among the five systems for both in-hospital mortality and the need for MV in GTPs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.