Citation

Zhao XG, Ma YF, Zhang M, Gan JX, Xu SW, Jiang GY. Chin. J. Traumatol. 2008; 11(6): 368-371.

Affiliation

Department of Emergency Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital, Medical School of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310009, China.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Chinese Medical Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

19032853

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether these characteristics of less misclassification and greater area under receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of the new injury severity score (NISS) are better than the injury severity score (ISS) as applying it to our multiple trauma patients registered into the emergency intensive care unit (EICU).Methods: This was a retrospective review of registry data from 2 286 multiple trauma patients consecutively registered into the EICU from January 1,1997 to December 31, 2006 in the Second Affiliated Hospital, Medical School of Zhejiang University in China. Comparisons between ISS and NISS were made using misclassification rates, ROC curve analysis, and the H-L statistics by univariate and multivariate logistic progression model.Results: Among the 2 286 patients, 176 (7.7%) were excluded because of deaths on arrival or patients less than 16 years of age. The study population therefore comprised 2 110 patients. Mean EICU length of stay (LOS) was 7.8 days ?2.4 days. Compared with the blunt injury group, the penetrating injury group had a higher percentage of male, lower mean EICU LOS and age. The most frequently injured body regions were extremities and head/neck, followed by thorax, face and abdomen in the blunt injury group; whereas, thorax and abdomen were more frequently seen in the penetrating injury group. The minimum misclassification rate for NISS was slightly less than ISS in all groups (4.01% versus 4.49%). However, NISS had more tendency to misclassify in the penetrating injury group. This, we noted, was attributed mainly to a higher false-positive rate (21.04% versus 15.55% for ISS, t equal to 3.310, P less than 0.001), resulting in an overall misclassification rate of 23.57% for NISS versus 18.79% for ISS (t equal to 3.290, P less than 0.001). In the whole sample, NISS presented equivalent discrimination (area under ROC curve: NISS equal to 0.938 versus ISS equal to 0.943). The H-L statistics showed poorer calibration (48.64 versus 32.11, t equal to 3.305, P less than 0.001) in the penetrating injury group. Conclusions: NISS should not replace ISS because they share similar accuracy and calibration in predicting multiple blunt trauma patients. NISS may be more sensitive but less specific than ISS in predicting mortality in certain penetrating injury patients.

Language: en