ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2026
Predictive value of trauma scoring systems for mortality and intensive care outcomes among trauma patients: a study from central Iran.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid and accurate assessment of trauma severity is essential for guiding clinical decisions and improving patient outcomes. Although several trauma scoring systems exist, their practicality and predictive performance in real-world emergency settings remain under investigation. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the predictive value of three rapidly assessable trauma scoring systems, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Injury Severity Score (ISS), for in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and prolonged ICU stay among trauma patients in central Iran.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 1,812 trauma patients admitted to Shahid Rahnemoun Hospital, Yazd, Iran, from April 2018 to May 2019. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were collected from medical records. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to assess the predictive performance of GCS, RTS, and ISS for trauma outcomes.
resultsRoad traffic injuries (RTIs) were the leading cause of trauma (60.6%), followed by falls (23.2%). The overall mortality rate was 1.6%, and 15.9% required ICU admission. ISS showed the strongest association with mortality (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.10-1.20; p < 0.01), ICU admission (OR = 1.26; 95% CI: 1.23-1.30), and prolonged ICU stay (OR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.13-1.20). ROC analysis confirmed ISS as the most accurate predictor across all outcomes: AUC = 0.948 (95% CI: 0.92-0.97) for mortality, 0.877 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90) for ICU admission, and 0.933 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95) for prolonged ICU stay. GCS and RTS also demonstrated acceptable predictive ability, particularly for prolonged ICU stay (AUC = 0.906 and 0.882, respectively).
conclusionISS exhibited superior predictive accuracy for mortality, ICU admission, and prolonged ICU stay compared with GCS and RTS. All three systems proved clinically useful, with ISS recommended for well-equipped trauma centers and GCS/RTS for rapid triage in resource-limited settings.
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.