4.5 Article

Validating the Injury Severity Score (ISS) in Different Populations: ISS Predicts Mortality Better Among Hispanics and Females

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 166, 期 1, 页码 40-44

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.04.012

关键词

trauma; ISS (injury severity score); scoring systems; outcomes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. The Injury Severity Score (ISS) is the most commonly used measure of injury severity. The score has been shown to have excellent predictive capability for trauma mortality and has been validated in multiple data sets. However, the score has never been tested to see if its discriminatory ability is affected by differences in race and gender. Objective. This study is aimed at validating the ISS in men and women and in three different race/ethnic groups using a nationwide database. Methods. Retrospective analysis of patients age 18-64 y in the National Trauma Data Bank 7.0 with blunt trauma was performed. ISS was categorized as mild (< 9,) moderate (9-15), severe (16-25), and profound (> 25). Logistic regression was done to measure the relative odds of mortality associated with a change in ISS categories. The discriminatory ability was compared using the receiver operating characteristics curves (ROC). A P value testing the equality of the ROC curves was calculated. Age stratified analyses were also conducted. Results. A total of 872,102 patients had complete data for the analysis on ethnicity, while 763,549 patients were included in the gender analysis. The overall mortality rate was 3.7%. ROC in Whites was 0.8617, in Blacks 0.8586, and in Hispanics 0.8869. Hispanics have a statistically significant higher ROC (P value < 0.001). Similar results were observed within each age category. ROC curves were also significantly higher in females than in males. Conclusion. The ISS possesses excellent discriminatory ability in all populations as indicated by the high ROCs. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据