Archives of Trauma Research (Dec 2023)

Comparison of revised trauma score with MGAP score in determining clinical outcomes of multiple trauma patients hospitalized in trauma center

  • Majid Pourshaikhian,
  • Ehsan Kazemnezhad,
  • Ehsan Azizi,
  • Iraj Aghaei

DOI
https://doi.org/10.48307/atr.2023.410476.1027
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 4
pp. 179 – 185

Abstract

Read online

Background: Trauma is one of the important causes of disability, death and major health problem in the world. Various instruments are used to assess the clinical outcomes of trauma patients.Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) with the MGAP score in determining the clinical outcomes.Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on 1000 multiple trauma patients admitted to Poursina Hospital in Rasht. The data collection instruments included a three-part checklist of demographic and clinical characteristics, RTS and MGAP scores, and clinical outcomes (length of hospitalization and mortality). Data were analyzed using descriptive and non-parametric statistical tests by SPSS 21 software. To determine the predictive power of RTS and MGAP mortality using the ROC test, in addition to obtaining the area under the curve (AUC), the cut-off point, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were obtained.Results: The findings showed that 3% of patients (CI: 95%) died and the length of hospitalization was 3.7±2 days. The mortality prediction level of RTS and MGAP instruments for trauma patients was significant (P<0.001) according to AUCs of 97.9% and 98.3%, respectively. Correlation between MGAP and RTS for the length of hospitalization were significant (r=-0.267and r=-0.274, p<0.001), but the intensity of correlation between MGAP and RTS was not significant. The best cut-off points for RTS and MGAP were equal to 7 and 22.5, respectively, with sensitivity rates of 98.1% and 92.3%., specificity rates of 96.7%, and 92.3%., PPV values of 97.7% and 92.3% and NPV values of 92.3% and 98.1%, respectively.Conclusion: MAGP and RTS instruments can predict the clinical outcomes of trauma patients well, but they did not have a significant superiority over each other. Therefore, the preferred choice of one of these agents requires multicenter studies.

Keywords