We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
Email Signup | RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article


Meredith JW, Evans G, Kilgo PD, MacKenzie EJ, Osler T, McGwin G, Cohn S, Esposito T, Gennarelli TA, Hawkins M, Lucas C, Mock C, Rotondo M, Rue L, Champion HR. J. Trauma 2002; 53(4): 621-628.


Department of Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157, USA.


(Copyright © 2002, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)






OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the abilities of nine Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)- and (ICD-9)-based scoring algorithms in predicting mortality. METHODS: The scores collected on 76,871 incidents consist of four AIS-based algorithms (Injury Severity Score [ISS], New Injury Severity Score, Anatomic Profile Score [APS], and maximum AIS [maxAIS]), their four ICD to AIS mapped counterparts, and the ICD-9-based ISS (ICISS). A 10-fold cross-validation was performed and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine algorithm discrimination. Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics were computed to gauge goodness-of-fit, and model refinement measured variance of predicted probabilities. RESULTS: Overall, the ICISS has the best discrimination and model refinement, whereas the APS has the best Hosmer-Lemeshow performance. ICD-9 to AIS mapped scores have worse discrimination than their AIS-based counterparts, but still show moderate performance. CONCLUSION: Differences in performance were relatively small. Complex scores such as the ICISS and the APS provide improvement in discrimination relative to the maxAIS and the ISS. Trauma registries should move to include the ICISS and the APS. The ISS and maxAIS perform moderately well and have bedside benefits.


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley