Observational studyBMJ open2026
A comparative evaluation of the prognostic performance of MGAP and GAP trauma scores in predicting clinical outcomes in multiple trauma patients: protocol for a prospective cohort study from Baghdad, Iraq.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06732791 (A Comparative Analysis of MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores in Predicting Prognosis for Multiple Trauma Patients), which is not on this 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.
A Comparative Analysis of MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores in Predicting Prognosis for Multiple Trauma Patients: A Prospective Observational Study
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTrauma remains a significant contributor to global morbidity and mortality, with low- and middle-income countries being particularly affected due to limited resources and delayed medical care. Although trauma scoring systems such as MGAP (Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, Arterial Pressure) and GAP (Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, Systolic Blood Pressure) can be used for rapid risk assessment, they have never been validated for use in conflict-affected regions like Iraq. This study assesses the prognostic accuracy of MGAP and GAP in predicting in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission and surgical intervention in multiple trauma cases from Iraq. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective observational cohort study is set to take place at Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital in Baghdad, running from April 2025 to March 2027. This study will include patients aged 16 and older who experience multiple trauma within 6 hours of the event. Estimated sample size of 522 participants. Demographic information, mechanism of injury, vital signs and clinical outcomes as a result of accidents will be collected. The MGAP and GAP scoring systems will be used and their results will subsequently be compared using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. This will involve assessing the area under the curve to evaluate the predictive performance of the scores. The significant threshold will be set at p<0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the College of Medicine, Al-Nahrain University (Approval No. UNCOMIRB20250383), with approval valid from 7 March 2025 to 7 March 2027. Written and verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrolment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06732791.
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.