PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Predicting the outcome of trauma helps clinician to prioritize patients and provide timely and effective treatment. Several scoring systems are implemented to predict prognosis and mortality among these patients. Our study aims to use four scoring systems to predict mortality among multiple trauma patients.
UNASSIGNED: In retrospective descriptive study, the data was collected from records of (XXX) of multiple trauma patients referred to the hospital from June 2019-January 2020. The patients were scored using four scoring systems: MGAP (mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial pressure), GAP (Glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial pressure), ISS (injury severity score) and RTS (revised trauma score).
UNASSIGNED: The mean age of the patients was 37.4 ± 4.2 years and of 112 patients, 92 patients (82.1%) were males. Sensitivity of GAP, RTS and ISS was 100% in predicting mortality where MGAP had highest specificity, 97.2%. All four scoring systems significantly predicted mortality, p < 0.001, respectively and the highest area under the curve was for RTS criteria, 0.969.
UNASSIGNED: MGAP, GAP, RTS and ISS were all effective in predicting mortality among multiple trauma patients whereas MGAP had both, highest sensitivity and specificity. Scoring trauma for mortality can be achieved by using any of the systems, provided the information required for score can be obtained.
UNASSIGNED: In retrospective descriptive study, the data was collected from records of (XXX) of multiple trauma patients referred to the hospital from June 2019-January 2020. The patients were scored using four scoring systems: MGAP (mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial pressure), GAP (Glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial pressure), ISS (injury severity score) and RTS (revised trauma score).
UNASSIGNED: The mean age of the patients was 37.4 ± 4.2 years and of 112 patients, 92 patients (82.1%) were males. Sensitivity of GAP, RTS and ISS was 100% in predicting mortality where MGAP had highest specificity, 97.2%. All four scoring systems significantly predicted mortality, p < 0.001, respectively and the highest area under the curve was for RTS criteria, 0.969.
UNASSIGNED: MGAP, GAP, RTS and ISS were all effective in predicting mortality among multiple trauma patients whereas MGAP had both, highest sensitivity and specificity. Scoring trauma for mortality can be achieved by using any of the systems, provided the information required for score can be obtained.
摘要：
UNASSIGNED：预测创伤的结果有助于临床医生优先考虑患者并提供及时有效的治疗。实施了几种评分系统来预测这些患者的预后和死亡率。我们的研究旨在使用四种评分系统来预测多发伤患者的死亡率。
未经评估：在回顾性描述性研究中，数据收集自2019年6月至2020年1月转诊至医院的(XXX)多发性创伤患者的记录.使用四种评分系统对患者进行评分：MGAP(机制，格拉斯哥昏迷量表,年龄,和动脉压)，GAP(格拉斯哥昏迷量表,年龄,和动脉压)，ISS(损伤严重度评分)和RTS(修正的创伤评分)。
未经证实：患者的平均年龄为37.4±4.2岁，其中112名患者，92例（82.1%）为男性。GAP的敏感性,RTS和ISS在预测死亡率方面是100%，MGAP的特异性最高，97.2%。所有四个评分系统都能显著预测死亡率，p<0.001，曲线下的最高面积分别是RTS标准，0.969.
未经评估：MGAP，GAP,RTS和ISS都能有效预测多发伤患者的死亡率，而MGAP两者都有，最高的灵敏度和特异性。可以通过使用任何系统来实现对死亡率的创伤评分，前提是可以获得分数所需的信息。
未经评估：在回顾性描述性研究中，数据收集自2019年6月至2020年1月转诊至医院的(XXX)多发性创伤患者的记录.使用四种评分系统对患者进行评分：MGAP(机制，格拉斯哥昏迷量表,年龄,和动脉压)，GAP(格拉斯哥昏迷量表,年龄,和动脉压)，ISS(损伤严重度评分)和RTS(修正的创伤评分)。
未经证实：患者的平均年龄为37.4±4.2岁，其中112名患者，92例（82.1%）为男性。GAP的敏感性,RTS和ISS在预测死亡率方面是100%，MGAP的特异性最高，97.2%。所有四个评分系统都能显著预测死亡率，p<0.001，曲线下的最高面积分别是RTS标准，0.969.
未经评估：MGAP，GAP,RTS和ISS都能有效预测多发伤患者的死亡率，而MGAP两者都有，最高的灵敏度和特异性。可以通过使用任何系统来实现对死亡率的创伤评分，前提是可以获得分数所需的信息。
