External validation of a modified trauma and injury severity score model in major trauma injury. Issue 5 (May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chen, W.S.; Tan, J.H.; Mohamad, Y.; Imran, R.
• Is Part Of: Injury. Volume 50:Issue 5(2019)
• Page Start: 1118
• Page End: 1124
• Publication Date: 2019-05
• Subjects: Outcome prediction models -- External validation in prognostic models -- MTOS-TRISS model -- NTrD-TRISS model; Wounds and injuries -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and Injuries -- surgery -- Periodicals; Lésions et blessures -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.12.031
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-1383

Abstract

Highlights: This study demonstrates both the MTOS-TRISS and the NTrD-TRISS models had good discriminative ability. The NTrD-TRISS model calibrated as good as the MTOS-TRISS model particularly for patients with blunt trauma mechanism. Overall, the outcome prediction of MTOS-TRISS and NTrD-TRISS models using NISS was found to be consistent with the same model using the ISS. Abstract: Background: The establishment of an accurate prognostic model in major trauma patients is important mainly because this group of patients will benefit the most. Clinical prediction models must be validated internally and externally on a regular basis to ensure the prediction is accurate and current. This study aims to externally validate two prediction models, the Trauma and Injury Severity Score model developed using the Major Trauma Outcome Study in North America (MTOS-TRISS model), and the NTrD-TRISS model, which is a refined MTOS-TRISS model with coefficients derived from the Malaysian National Trauma Database (NTrD), by regarding mortality as the outcome measurement. Method: This retrospective study included patients with major trauma injuries reported to a trauma centre of Hospital Sultanah Aminah over a 6-year period from 2011 and 2017. Model validation was examined using the measures of discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit test was used to examine calibration capabilities. The predictive validity of both MTOS-TRISS and NTrD-TRISS models were further evaluated by incorporating parameters such as the New Injury Severity Scale and the Injury Severity Score. Results: Total patients of 3788 (3434 blunt and 354 penetrating injuries) with average age of 37 years (standard deviation of 16 years) were included in this study. All MTOS-TRISS and NTrD-TRISS models examined in this study showed adequate discriminative ability with AUCs ranged from 0.86 to 0.89 for patients with blunt trauma mechanism and 0.89 to 0.99 for patients with penetrating trauma mechanism. The H-L goodness-of-fit test indicated the NTrD-TRISS model calibrated as good as the MTOS-TRISS model for patients with blunt trauma mechanism. Conclusion: For patients with blunt trauma mechanism, both the MTOS-TRISS and NTrD-TRISS models showed good discrimination and calibration performances. Discrimination performance for the NTrD-TRISS model was revealed to be as good as the MTOS-TRISS model specifically for patients with penetrating trauma mechanism. Overall, this validation study has ascertained the discrimination and calibration performances of the NTrD-TRISS model to be as good as the MTOS-TRISS model particularly for patients with blunt trauma mechanism.