Scientific Reports (Apr 2024)

Comparison of nine trauma scoring systems in prediction of inhospital outcomes of pediatric trauma patients: a multicenter study

  • Armin Khavandegar,
  • Payman Salamati,
  • Mohammadreza Zafarghandi,
  • Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar,
  • Mahdi Sharif-Alhoseini,
  • Esmaeil Fakharian,
  • Seyed Houssein Saeed-Banadaky,
  • Vahid Hoseinpour,
  • Farideh Sadeghian,
  • Mehdi Nasr Isfahani,
  • Vahid Rahmanian,
  • Amir Ghadiphasha,
  • Sobhan Pourmasjedi,
  • Seyed Mohammad Piri,
  • Sara Mirzamohamadi,
  • Mahgol Sadat Hassan Zadeh Tabatabaei,
  • Khatereh Naghdi,
  • Vali Baigi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58373-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Hereby, we aimed to comprehensively compare different scoring systems for pediatric trauma and their ability to predict in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The current registry-based multicenter study encompassed a comprehensive dataset of 6709 pediatric trauma patients aged ≤ 18 years from July 2016 to September 2023. To ascertain the predictive efficacy of the scoring systems, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated. A total of 720 individuals (10.7%) required admission to the ICU. The mortality rate was 1.1% (n = 72). The most predictive scoring system for in-hospital mortality was the adjusted trauma and injury severity score (aTRISS) (AUC = 0.982), followed by trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) (AUC = 0.980), new trauma and injury severity score (NTRISS) (AUC = 0.972), Glasgow coma scale (GCS) (AUC = 0.9546), revised trauma score (RTS) (AUC = 0.944), pre-hospital index (PHI) (AUC = 0.936), injury severity score (ISS) (AUC = 0.901), new injury severity score (NISS) (AUC = 0.900), and abbreviated injury scale (AIS) (AUC = 0.734). Given the predictive performance of the scoring systems for ICU admission, NTRISS had the highest predictive performance (AUC = 0.837), followed by aTRISS (AUC = 0.836), TRISS (AUC = 0.823), ISS (AUC = 0.807), NISS (AUC = 0.805), GCS (AUC = 0.735), RTS (AUC = 0.698), PHI (AUC = 0.662), and AIS (AUC = 0.651). In the present study, we concluded the superiority of the TRISS and its two derived counterparts, aTRISS and NTRISS, compared to other scoring systems, to efficiently discerning individuals who possess a heightened susceptibility to unfavorable consequences. The significance of these findings underscores the necessity of incorporating these metrics into the realm of clinical practice.

Keywords