The new injury severity score underestimates true injury severity in a resource-constrained setting

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE African Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1016/j.afjem.2023.12.001
Smitha Bhaumik , Krithika Suresh , Hendrick Lategan , Elmin Steyn , Nee-Kofi Mould-Millman
{"title":"The new injury severity score underestimates true injury severity in a resource-constrained setting","authors":"Smitha Bhaumik ,&nbsp;Krithika Suresh ,&nbsp;Hendrick Lategan ,&nbsp;Elmin Steyn ,&nbsp;Nee-Kofi Mould-Millman","doi":"10.1016/j.afjem.2023.12.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The new injury severity score (NISS) is widely used within trauma outcomes research. NISS is a composite anatomic severity score derived from the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) protocol. It has been postulated that NISS underestimates trauma severity in resource-constrained settings, which may contribute to erroneous research conclusions. We formally compare NISS to an expert panel's assessment of injury severity in South Africa.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective chart review of adult trauma patients seen in a tertiary trauma center. Randomly selected medical records were reviewed by an AIS-certified rater who assigned an AIS severity score for each anatomic injury. A panel of five South African trauma experts independently reviewed the same charts and assigned consensus severity scores using a similar scale for comparability. NISS was calculated as the sum of the squares of the three highest assigned severity scores per patient. The difference in average NISS between rater and expert panel was assessed using a multivariable linear mixed effects regression adjusted for patient demographics, injury mechanism and type.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 49 patients with 190 anatomic injuries, the majority were male (<em>n</em> = 38), the average age was 36 (range 18–80), with either a penetrating (<em>n</em> = 23) or blunt (<em>n</em> = 26) injury, resulting in 4 deaths. Mean NISS was 16 (SD 15) for the AIS rater compared to 28 (SD 20) for the expert panel. Adjusted for potential confounders, AIS rater NISS was on average 11 points (95 % CI: 7, 15) lower than the expert panel NISS (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Injury type was an effect modifier, with the difference between the AIS rater and expert panel being greater in penetrating versus blunt injury (16 vs. 7; <em>p</em> = 0.04). Crush injury was not well-captured by AIS protocol.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>NISS may under-estimate the ‘true’ injury severity in a middle-income country trauma hospital, particularly for patients with penetrating injury.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48515,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X23000654/pdfft?md5=b669775613425e04a405d05b9065f4b5&pid=1-s2.0-S2211419X23000654-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X23000654","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The new injury severity score (NISS) is widely used within trauma outcomes research. NISS is a composite anatomic severity score derived from the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) protocol. It has been postulated that NISS underestimates trauma severity in resource-constrained settings, which may contribute to erroneous research conclusions. We formally compare NISS to an expert panel's assessment of injury severity in South Africa.

Methods

This was a retrospective chart review of adult trauma patients seen in a tertiary trauma center. Randomly selected medical records were reviewed by an AIS-certified rater who assigned an AIS severity score for each anatomic injury. A panel of five South African trauma experts independently reviewed the same charts and assigned consensus severity scores using a similar scale for comparability. NISS was calculated as the sum of the squares of the three highest assigned severity scores per patient. The difference in average NISS between rater and expert panel was assessed using a multivariable linear mixed effects regression adjusted for patient demographics, injury mechanism and type.

Results

Of 49 patients with 190 anatomic injuries, the majority were male (n = 38), the average age was 36 (range 18–80), with either a penetrating (n = 23) or blunt (n = 26) injury, resulting in 4 deaths. Mean NISS was 16 (SD 15) for the AIS rater compared to 28 (SD 20) for the expert panel. Adjusted for potential confounders, AIS rater NISS was on average 11 points (95 % CI: 7, 15) lower than the expert panel NISS (p < 0.001). Injury type was an effect modifier, with the difference between the AIS rater and expert panel being greater in penetrating versus blunt injury (16 vs. 7; p = 0.04). Crush injury was not well-captured by AIS protocol.

Conclusion

NISS may under-estimate the ‘true’ injury severity in a middle-income country trauma hospital, particularly for patients with penetrating injury.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在资源有限的情况下,新的损伤严重程度评分低估了真实的损伤严重程度
背景新损伤严重程度评分(NISS)在创伤结果研究中被广泛使用。NISS 是根据简易损伤量表 (AIS) 协议得出的综合解剖严重程度评分。据推测,在资源有限的情况下,NISS 低估了创伤的严重程度,这可能会导致错误的研究结论。我们将 NISS 与专家小组对南非创伤严重程度的评估进行了正式比较。方法这是对在一家三级创伤中心就诊的成年创伤患者进行的回顾性病历审查。随机抽取的病历由 AIS 认证的评分员进行审核,该评分员对每种解剖损伤进行 AIS 严重程度评分。由五名南非创伤专家组成的小组独立审阅了相同的病历,并采用类似的评分标准给出了一致的严重程度评分,以确保可比性。NISS 以每位患者三个最高严重程度评分的平方和计算。采用多变量线性混合效应回归评估了评分者和专家组之间的平均 NISS 差异,并对患者人口统计学特征、受伤机制和类型进行了调整。结果 在 49 名患者的 190 处解剖损伤中,大多数为男性(n = 38),平均年龄为 36 岁(18-80 岁不等),损伤类型为穿透伤(n = 23)或钝伤(n = 26),其中 4 人死亡。AIS 评分者的平均 NISS 为 16(SD 15),而专家组的平均 NISS 为 28(SD 20)。对潜在的混杂因素进行调整后,AIS 评分者的 NISS 平均比专家小组的 NISS 低 11 点(95 % CI:7,15)(p < 0.001)。伤害类型是影响因素之一,在穿透伤与钝器伤之间,AIS 评分者与专家组之间的差异更大(16 vs. 7; p = 0.04)。结论在中等收入国家的创伤医院中,NISS可能低估了 "真实 "的损伤严重程度,尤其是对穿透伤患者而言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
78
审稿时长
85 days
期刊最新文献
From vocational to graduation: A mixed methods study of support needs for vocational learners pursuing post-graduate education in South Africa Improving pain management for trauma patients at two Rwandan emergency departments Descriptive analysis of road traffic crashes encountered by Tanzanian motorcycle taxi drivers trained in first aid Workplace violence in three public sector emergency departments, Gauteng, South Africa: A cross-sectional survey Healthcare professionals perceptions towards the determinants of effective emergency health care services in public health centres of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1