Performance of physiology scoring systems in prediction of in-hospital mortality of traumatic children: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: This study is designed to compare the value of four physiologic scoring systems of rapid acute physiology score (RAPS), rapid emergency medicine score (REMS), Worthing physiology scoring system (WPSS) and revised trauma score (RTS) in predicting the in-hospital mortality of traumatic children brought to the emergency department. METHOD: We used the data gathered from six healthcare centers across Iran between the April-October 2016. Included patients were all children with trauma. Patients were assessed and followed until discharge. Moreover, patients were divided to two groups of died and alive, and discriminatory power and general calibration of models in prediction of in-hospital mortality were compared. RESULTS: Data was gathered from 814 children (average age of 11.65 ± 5.36 years, 74.32% boys). Highest measured area under the curve was for RAPS and REMS with 0.986 and 0.986, respectively. Areas under the curve of WPSS and RTS were 0.920 and 0.949, respectively (p = 0.02). Sensitivity and specificity of RAPS were 100.0 and 95.05, respectively. These amounts for REMS were 100.0 and 94.04, respectively. Two models of RTS and WPSS had the same sensitivity of 84.62. Specificity of these two was 98.22 and 96.95, respectively. Three models of RAPS, REMS and RTS had proper calibrations in predicting mortality; however, it seems that WPSS overestimates the mortality in high risk patients. CONCLUSION: As calculations of RAPS is easier than REMS and their proper calibrations, it seems that RAPS is the best physiologic model in predicting in-hospital mortality and classifying in traumatic children based on severity of injury. However, further validation of the recommended score is essential before implementing them into routine clinical practice.

Worthing Physiological Score vs Revised Trauma Score in Outcome Prediction of Trauma patients; a Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Awareness about the outcome of trauma patients in the emergency department (ED) has become a topic of interest. Accordingly, the present study aimed to compare the rapid trauma score (RTS) and worthing physiological scoring system (WPSS) in predicting in-hospital mortality and poor outcome of trauma patients. METHODS: In this comparative study trauma patients brought to five EDs in different cities of Iran during the year 2016 were included. After data collection, discriminatory power and calibration of the models were assessed and compared using STATA 11. RESULTS: 2148 patients with the mean age of 39.50±17.27 years were included (75.56% males). The AUC of RTS and WPSS models for prediction of mortality were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.90) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.94), respectively (p=0.006). RTS had a sensitivity of 71.54 (95% CI: 62.59-79.13) and a specificity of 97.38 (95% CI: 96.56-98.01) in prediction of mortality. These measures for the WPSS were 87.80 (95% CI: 80.38-92.78) and 83.45 (95% CI: 81.75-85.04), respectively. The AUC of RTS and WPSS in predicting poor outcome were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.85) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.92), respectively (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The findings showed a higher prognostic value for the WPSS model in predicting mortality and severe disabilities in trauma patients compared to the RTS model. Both models had good overall performance in prediction of mortality and poor outcome.

Comparing diagnostic accuracy of bedside ultrasound and radiography for bone fracture screening in multiple trauma patients at the ED.

INTRODUCTION: Long bone fractures are currently diagnosed using radiography, but radiography has some disadvantages (radiation and being time consuming). The present study compared the diagnostic accuracy of bedside ultrasound and radiography in multiple trauma patients at the emergency department (ED). METHOD: The study assessed 80 injured patients with multiple trauma from February 2011 to July 2012. The patients were older than 18 years and triaged to the cardiopulmonary resuscitation ward of the ED. Bedside ultrasound and radiography were conducted for them. The findings were separately and blindly assessed by 2 radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, the positive and negative predictive value, and κ coefficient were measured to assess the accuracy and validity of ultrasound as compared with radiography. RESULTS: The sensitivity of ultrasound for diagnosis of limb bone fractures was not high enough and ranged between 55% and 75% depending on the fracture site. The specificity of this diagnostic method had an acceptable range of 62% to 84%. Ultrasound negative prediction value was higher than other indices under study and ranged between 73% and 83%, but its positive prediction value varied between 33.3% and 71%. The κ coefficient for diagnosis of long bone fractures of upper limb (κ = 0.58) and upper limb joints (κ = 0.47) and long bones of lower limb (κ = 0.52) was within the medium range. However, the value for diagnosing fractures of lower limb joints (κ = 0.47) was relatively low. CONCLUSION: Bedside ultrasound is not a reliable method for diagnosing fractures of upper and lower limb bones compared with radiography.