Comparison of two prognostic models in trauma outcome. BJS 2018; 105: 513-519.
Published: 21st February 2018
Authors: A. Cook, T. Osler, L. Glance, F. Lecky, O. Bouamra, J. Weddle et al.
The Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) in the UK publicly reports hospital performance in the management of trauma. The TARN risk adjustment model uses a fractional polynomial transformation of the Injury Severity Score (ISS) as the measure of anatomical injury severity. The Trauma Mortality Prediction Model (TMPM) is an alternative to ISS; this study compared the anatomical injury components of the TARN model with the TMPM.
Data from the National Trauma Data Bank for 2011–2015 were analysed. Probability of death was estimated for the TARN fractional polynomial transformation of ISS and compared with the TMPM. The coefficients for each model were estimated using 80 per cent of the data set, selected randomly. The remaining 20 per cent of the data were used for model validation. TMPM and TARN were compared using calibration curves, measures of discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curves; AUROC), proximity to the true model (Akaike information criterion; AIC) and goodness of model fit (Hosmer–Lemeshow test).
Some 438 058 patient records were analysed. TMPM demonstrated preferable AUROC (0·882 for TMPM
TMPM had greater discrimination, proximity to the true model and goodness‐of‐fit than the anatomical injury component of TARN. TMPM should be considered for the injury severity measure for the comparative assessment of trauma centres.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: A. Storesund, A. S. Haugen, M. Hjortås, M. W. Nortvedt, H. Flaatten, G. E. Eide et al.
Notes: Code correctly
Authors: O. Uleberg, K. Pape, T. Kristiansen, P. R. Romundstad, P. Klepstad
Authors: G. Polychronidis, F. J. Hüttner, P. Contin, K. Goossen, L. Uhlmann, M. Heidmann et al.
Authors: F. F. A. IJpma, T. M. van Gulik
Authors: J. Zheng, S.‐H. Xie, G. Santoni, J. Lagergren
Notes: Diabetes increases risk
Pancreas‐sparing, ampulla‐preserving duodenectomy for major duodenal (D1–D2) perforations. BJS 2018; 105: 1487-1492.
Authors: S. Di Saverio, E. Segalini, A. Birindelli, S. Todero, M. Podda, A. Rizzuto et al.
Notes: Useful option
Systematic review of the prevalence, impact and mitigating strategies for bullying, undermining behaviour and harassment in the surgical workplace. BJS 2018; 105: 1390-1397.
Authors: U. A. Halim, D. M. Riding
Notes: Common and damaging
Authors: A. Endo, A. Shiraishi, K. Fushimi, K. Murata, Y. Otomo
Notes: Mortality similar among low, medium and high ratios
Authors: N. Patani, F. MacAskill, S. Eshelby, A. Omar, A. Kaura, K. Contractor et al.
Notes: Outcomes improve