A Trauma Mortality Prediction Model Based on the Anatomic Injury Scale

Published In: Annals of Surgery, v. 247, no. 6, June 2008, p. 1041-1048

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2008

by Turner M. Osler, Laurent G. Glance, Jeffery S. Buzas, Dana B. Mukamel, Jacob Wagner, Andrew W. Dick

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.annalsofsurgery.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a statistically rigorous trauma mortality prediction model based on empiric estimates of severity for each injury in the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) and compare the performance of this new model with the injury severity score (ISS). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Mortality rates at trauma centers should only be compared after adjusting for differences in injury severity, but no reliable measure of injury severity currently exists. The ISS has served as the standard measure of anatomic injury for 30 years. However, it relies on the individual injury severities assigned by experts in the AIS, is nonmonotonic with respect to mortality, and fails to perform even as well as a far simpler model based on the single worst injury a patient has sustained. METHODS: This study is based on data from 702,229 injured patients in the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB 6.1) hospitalized between 2001 and 2005. Sixty percent of the data was used to derive an empiric measure of severity of each of the 1322 injuries in the AIS lexicon by taking the weighted average of coefficients estimated using 2 separate regression models. The remaining 40% of the data was use to create 3 exploratory mortality prediction models and compare their performance with the ISS using measures of discrimination (C statistic), calibration (Hosmer Lemeshow statistic and calibration curves), and the Akaike information criterion. RESULTS: Three new models based on empiric AIS injury severities were developed. All of these new models discriminated survivors from nonsurvivors better than the ISS, but one, the trauma mortality prediction model (TMPM), had both better discrimination [ROCTMPM = 0.901 (0.898-0.905), ROCISS = 0.871 (0.866-0.877)] and better calibration [HLTMPM = 58 (35-91), HLISS = 296 (228-357)] than the ISS. The addition of age, gender, and mechanism of injury improved all models, but the augmented TMPM dominated ISS by every measure [ROCTMPM = 0.925(0.921-0.928), ROCISS = 0.904(0.901-0.909), HLTMPM = 18 (12-31), HLISS = 54 (30-64)]. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma mortality models based on empirical estimates of individual injury severity better discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors than does the current standard, ISS. One such model, the TMPM, has both superior discrimination and calibration when compared with the ISS. The TMPM should replace the ISS as the standard measure of overall injury severity.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.