Prognostic accuracy study

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    多发性创伤评分已经被开发和验证,包括修订后的创伤评分(RTS)和机制,格拉斯哥昏迷量表,年龄,和动脉压(MGAP)评分。然而,这些评分计算复杂,或对创伤死亡率的预测能力较低.因此,我们的目标是开发和验证比RTS和MGAP评分更容易计算且更准确的创伤评分.
    本研究为回顾性预后研究。来自在日本创伤数据库(JTDB)中注册的患者的数据被分为推导和验证队列。来自抗纤维蛋白溶解治疗显著出血-2(CRASH-2)试验的临床随机化的患者数据被分配到另一个验证队列。我们获得了基线时的年龄和生理变量,从连续变量创建顺序变量,和定义的整数加权系数。使用受试者操作特征(AUROC)分析中的曲线下面积评估预测全因住院死亡的评分性能。
    基于JTDB推导队列(n=99,867,死亡率为12.5%),小说得分为0到14分,包括0-2分的年龄,格拉斯哥昏迷评分0-6分,收缩压0-4点,呼吸频率为0-2分。JTDB验证队列的新评分AUROC为0.932(n=76,762,死亡率为10.1%),CRASH-2队列为0.814(n=19,740,死亡率为14.6%),结果优于RTS(分别为0.907和0.808)和MGAP评分(分别为0.918和0.774)。
    我们报告了一种易于使用的创伤评分,与RTS和MGAP评分相比,对住院死亡率具有更好的预测能力。需要进一步的研究来测试新评分的临床适用性。
    Multiple trauma scores have been developed and validated, including the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and the Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure (MGAP) score. However, these scores are complex to calculate or have low prognostic abilities for trauma mortality. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate a trauma score that is easier to calculate and more accurate than the RTS and the MGAP score.
    The study was a retrospective prognostic study. Data from patients registered in the Japan Trauma Databank (JTDB) were dichotomized into derivation and validation cohorts. Patients\' data from the Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage-2 (CRASH-2) trial were assigned to another validation cohort. We obtained age and physiological variables at baseline, created ordinal variables from continuous variables, and defined integer weighting coefficients. Score performance to predict all-cause in-hospital death was assessed using the area under the curve in receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) analyses.
    Based on the JTDB derivation cohort (n = 99,867 with 12.5% mortality), the novel score ranged from 0 to 14 points, including 0-2 points for age, 0-6 points for the Glasgow Coma Scale, 0-4 points for systolic blood pressure, and 0-2 points for respiratory rate. The AUROC of the novel score was 0.932 for the JTDB validation cohort (n = 76,762 with 10.1% mortality) and 0.814 for the CRASH-2 cohort (n = 19,740 with 14.6% mortality), which was superior to RTS (0.907 and 0.808, respectively) and MGAP score (0.918 and 0.774, respectively) results.
    We report an easy-to-use trauma score with better prognostication ability for in-hospital mortality compared to the RTS and MGAP score. Further studies to test clinical applicability of the novel score are warranted.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号