We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
A comparison of prognosis calculators for geriatric trauma: A Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium study.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2017 July
BACKGROUND: The nine-center Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium has validated the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) as a prognosis calculator for injured elders. We compared GTOS' performance to that of the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in a multicenter sample.
METHODS: Three Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly centers not submitting subjects to the GTOS validation study identified subjects aged 65 years to 102 years admitted from 2000 to 2013. GTOS was specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (Injury Severity Score [ISS] × 2.5) + 22 (if transfused packed red cells (PRC) at 24 hours)]. TRISS uses the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), dichotomizes age (<55 years = 0 and ≥55 years = 1), and was specified using the updated 1995 beta coefficients. TRISS Penetrating was specified as [TRISSP = -2.5355 + (0.9934 × RTS) + (-0.0651 × ISS) + (-1.1360 × Age)]. TRISS Blunt was specified as [TRISSB = -0.4499 + (0.8085 × RTS Total) + (-0.0835 × ISS) + (-1.7430 × Age)]. Each then became the sole predictor in a separate logistic regression model to estimate probability of mortality. Model performances were evaluated using misclassification rate, Brier score, and area under the curve.
RESULTS: Demographics (mean + SD) of subjects with complete data (N = 10,894) were age, 78.3 years ± 8.1 years; ISS, 10.9 ± 8.4; RTS = 7.5 ± 1.1; mortality = 6.9%; blunt mechanism = 98.6%; 3.1 % of subjects received PRCs. The penetrating trauma subsample (n = 150) had a higher mortality rate of 20.0%. The misclassification rates for the models were GTOS, 0.065; TRISSB, 0.051; and TRISSP, 0.120. Brier scores were GTOS, 0.052; TRISSB, 0.041; and TRISSP, 0.084. The area under the curves were GTOS, 0.844; TRISSB, 0.889; and TRISSP, 0.897.
CONCLUSION: GTOS and TRISS function similarly and accurately in predicting probability of death for injured elders. GTOS has the advantages of a single formula, fewer variables, and no reliance on data collected in the emergency room or by other observers.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level II.
METHODS: Three Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly centers not submitting subjects to the GTOS validation study identified subjects aged 65 years to 102 years admitted from 2000 to 2013. GTOS was specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (Injury Severity Score [ISS] × 2.5) + 22 (if transfused packed red cells (PRC) at 24 hours)]. TRISS uses the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), dichotomizes age (<55 years = 0 and ≥55 years = 1), and was specified using the updated 1995 beta coefficients. TRISS Penetrating was specified as [TRISSP = -2.5355 + (0.9934 × RTS) + (-0.0651 × ISS) + (-1.1360 × Age)]. TRISS Blunt was specified as [TRISSB = -0.4499 + (0.8085 × RTS Total) + (-0.0835 × ISS) + (-1.7430 × Age)]. Each then became the sole predictor in a separate logistic regression model to estimate probability of mortality. Model performances were evaluated using misclassification rate, Brier score, and area under the curve.
RESULTS: Demographics (mean + SD) of subjects with complete data (N = 10,894) were age, 78.3 years ± 8.1 years; ISS, 10.9 ± 8.4; RTS = 7.5 ± 1.1; mortality = 6.9%; blunt mechanism = 98.6%; 3.1 % of subjects received PRCs. The penetrating trauma subsample (n = 150) had a higher mortality rate of 20.0%. The misclassification rates for the models were GTOS, 0.065; TRISSB, 0.051; and TRISSP, 0.120. Brier scores were GTOS, 0.052; TRISSB, 0.041; and TRISSP, 0.084. The area under the curves were GTOS, 0.844; TRISSB, 0.889; and TRISSP, 0.897.
CONCLUSION: GTOS and TRISS function similarly and accurately in predicting probability of death for injured elders. GTOS has the advantages of a single formula, fewer variables, and no reliance on data collected in the emergency room or by other observers.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level II.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app