A Changing of the Abbreviated Injury Scale that Improves Accuracy and Simplifies Scoring

Wang, Hong; Cai, WW; Qiu, WS; Qiu, Fang; Lv, WS

doi:10.1177/102490791302000303

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients who were dead on arrival to the hospital (18,581) or transferred to another facility (71,855) were also excluded. We excluded patients who sustained a single or multiple injuries and AIS_05 severity code component was 9 (5,282). At least 500 trauma patients per hospital annually were available (119,393 patients were excluded).…”

Section: Data Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

IMP-2005: an injury mortality prediction according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005

Wang

Qiu

Guo-hu

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It has been 45 years since the injury severity score (ISS) was first introduced. The method is flawed in traumatic death prediction but still widely used. Based on the abbreviated injury scale 1998 (AIS_98), there is a relatively more accurate trauma scoring method that assesses the injury mortality prediction (IMP) and trauma mortality prediction model (TMPM) with the regression model. Currently, AIS 2005 (AIS_05) is widely used around the world for trauma scores. This article assesses whether the IMP-2005, an AIS_05 based model, is better than the ISS in predicting trauma results. Methods: Retrospective cohort study is based on the data of 1,198,885 injured patients in the National Trauma Data Bank hospitalized from 2012 to 2014. We established an injury mortality prediction (IMP-2005) model using AIS trauma codes (version 2005) and compared its performance with that of ISS by examining area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) statistic, and the Akaike information criterion.Results: IMP-2005 behaves significantly both better discrimination (ROCIMP-2005, 0.904; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.900 to 0.908 and ROCISS, 0.844; 95% CI, 0.839 to 0.850) and calibration (HLIMP-2005, 37.7; 95% CI, 19.8 to 53 and HLISS, 221; 95% CI, 167 to 268) compared with ISS. Both models showed changes after the inclusion of gender, age, GCS, mechanism of injury, and mechanical ventilator, but the expansion of IMP-2005 still dominated ISS in every performance.Conclusions: The IMP-2005 provides far more improvement in discrimination and calibration compared with the ISS and accurate predictions of mortality. Therefore, we believe that this is a new and feasible scoring method of trauma research and should replace the ISS.

show abstract

Section: Data Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

IMP-2005: an injury mortality prediction according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005

Wang

Qiu

Guo-hu

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Data Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latest AIS version, AIS 2005 (AIS_05), was updated from AIS 1998 (AIS_98) [2]. Many kinds of quick evaluation methods based on AIS code are being gradually well established, such as the injury severity score (ISS), the new ISS (NISS), the changed injury severity score (CISS) and so on [3,4,5]. Their ability to predict traumatic mortality has been improved as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

IMP-2005: an injury mortality prediction according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005

Wang

Qiu

Zeng

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It has been 45 years since the injury severity score (ISS) was first introduced. The method is flawed in traumatic death prediction but still widely used. Based on the abbreviated injury scale 1998 (AIS_98), there is a relatively more accurate trauma scoring method that assesses the injury mortality prediction (IMP) and trauma mortality prediction model (TMPM) with the regression model. Currently, AIS 2005 (AIS_05) is widely used around the world for trauma scores. This article assesses whether the IMP-2005, an AIS_05 based model, is better than the ISS in predicting trauma results. Methods: Retrospective cohort study is based on the data of 1,239,404 injured patients in the National Trauma Data Bank hospitalized from 2012 to 2014. We established an injury mortality prediction (IMP-2005) model using AIS trauma codes (version 2005) and compared its performance with that of ISS by examining area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) statistic, and the Akaike information criterion.Results: IMP-2005 behaves significantly both better discrimination (ROCIMP-2005, 0.904; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.900 to 0.909 and ROCISS, 0.844; 95% CI, 0.839 to 0.850) and calibration (HLIMP-2005, 15.2; 95% CI, 8.5 to20.2 and HLISS, 221; 95% CI, 167 to 268) compared with ISS. Both models showed changes after the extension of gender, age, GCS, mechanism of injury, and mechanical ventilator, but the expansion of IMP-2005 still dominated ISS in every performance.Conclusions: The IMP-2005 provides far improvement in discrimination and calibration compared with the ISS and accurate predictions of mortality. Therefore, we believe that this is a new and feasible scoring method of trauma research and should replace the ISS.

show abstract

A Changing of the Abbreviated Injury Scale that Improves Accuracy and Simplifies Scoring

Cited by 2 publications

References 11 publications

IMP-2005: an injury mortality prediction according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005

IMP-2005: an injury mortality prediction according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005

IMP-2005: an injury mortality prediction according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About