Comparison of Two Prognostic Models in Trauma Outcome

Published in: British Journal of Surgery, Volume 105, Issue 5, pages 513-519 (April 2018). doi: 10.1002/bjs.10764

Posted on RAND.org on January 15, 2021

by Alan Cook, Turner M. Osler, Laurent G. Glance, Fiona Lecky, Omar Bouamra, Jo Weddle, Brian W. Gross, Jeanette Ward, Forrest O. Moore, Frederick Bolles Rogers, et al.

Read More

Access further information on this document at British Journal of Surgery

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

Background

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.

Methods

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).

Results

Some 438,058 patient records were analysed. TMPM demonstrated preferable AUROC (0·882 for TMPM versus 0·845 for TARN), AIC (18,204 versus 21,163) and better fit to the data (32·4 versus 153·0) compared with TARN.

Conclusion

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.

Research conducted by

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.