↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of ISS, NISS, and RTS score as predictor of mortality in pediatric fall

Overview of attention for article published in Burns & Trauma, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of ISS, NISS, and RTS score as predictor of mortality in pediatric fall
Published in
Burns & Trauma, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41038-017-0087-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kapil Dev Soni, Santosh Mahindrakar, Amit Gupta, Subodh Kumar, Sushma Sagar, Ashish Jhakal

Abstract

Studies to identify an ideal trauma score tool representing prediction of outcomes of the pediatric fall patient remains elusive. Our study was undertaken to identify better predictor of mortality in the pediatric fall patients. Data was retrieved from prospectively maintained trauma registry project at level 1 trauma center developed as part of Multicentric Project-Towards Improving Trauma Care Outcomes (TITCO) in India. Single center data retrieved from a prospectively maintained trauma registry at a level 1 trauma center, New Delhi, for a period ranging from 1 October 2013 to 17 February 2015 was evaluated. Standard anatomic scores Injury Severity Score (ISS) and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) were compared with physiologic score Revised Trauma Score (RTS) using receiver operating curve (ROC). Heart rate and RTS had a statistical difference among the survivors to nonsurvivors. ISS, NISS, and RTS were having 50, 50, and 86% of area under the curve on ROCs, and RTS was statistically significant among them. Physiologically based trauma score systems (RTS) are much better predictors of inhospital mortality in comparison to anatomical based scoring systems (ISS and NISS) for unintentional pediatric falls.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 21%
Researcher 4 17%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 58%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Unknown 7 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Burns & Trauma
#197
of 304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,488
of 327,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Burns & Trauma
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.