↓ Skip to main content

Combining the new injury severity score with an anatomical polytrauma injury variable predicts mortality better than the new injury severity score and the injury severity score: a retrospective…

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Combining the new injury severity score with an anatomical polytrauma injury variable predicts mortality better than the new injury severity score and the injury severity score: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0215-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ting Hway Wong, Gita Krishnaswamy, Nivedita Vikas Nadkarni, Hai V. Nguyen, Gek Hsiang Lim, Dianne Carrol Tan Bautista, Ming Terk Chiu, Khuan Yew Chow, Marcus Eng Hock Ong

Abstract

Anatomy-based injury severity scores are commonly used with physiological scores for reporting severity of injury in a standardized manner. However, there is lack of consensus on choice of scoring system, with the commonly used injury severity score (ISS) performing poorly for certain sub-groups, eg head-injured patients. We hypothesized that adding a dichotomous variable for polytrauma (yes/no for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores of 3 or more in at least two body regions) to the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) would improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality in injured patients, including head-injured patients-a subgroup that has a disproportionately high mortality. Our secondary hypothesis was that the ISS over-estimates the risk of death in polytrauma patients, while the NISS under-estimates it. Univariate and multivariable analysis was performed on retrospective cohort data of blunt injured patients aged 18 and over with an ISS over 9 from the Singapore National Trauma Registry from 2011-2013. Model diagnostics were tested using discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic). All models included age, gender, and comorbidities. Our results showed that the polytrauma and NISS model outperformed the other models (polytrauma and ISS, NISS alone or ISS alone) in predicting 30-day and in-hospital mortality. The NISS underestimated the risk of death for patients with polytrauma, while the ISS overestimated the risk of death for these patients. When used together with the NISS and polytrauma, categorical variables for deranged physiology (systolic blood pressure of 90 mmHg or less, GCS of 8 or less) outperformed the traditional 'ISS and RTS (Revised Trauma Score)' model, with a c-statistic of greater than 0.90. This could be useful in cases when the RTS cannot be scored due to missing respiratory rate. The NISS and polytrauma model is superior to current scores for prediction of 30-day and in-hospital mortality. We propose that this score replace the ISS or NISS in institutions using AIS-based scores. Adding polytrauma to the NISS or ISS improves prediction of 30-day mortality. The superiority of the NISS or ISS depends on the proportion of polytrauma and head-injured patients in the study population.

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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 79 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 28 34%
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 10 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,362,987
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1,018
of 1,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,034
of 299,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#36
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 299,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.