Authors
- Abbasali Dehghani Tafti 1
- Khadijeh Nasiriani 2
- Majid Hajimaghsoudi 3
- Mehri Maki 4
- Samaneh Mirzaei 1
- Adel Eftekhari 1
1 Department of Health in Emergency and Disaster, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2 Department of Nursing, Nursing and Midwifery School, Shaheed Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Yazd Iran
3 Center of trauma Emergency Medicine Department, Shahid Rahnemon Hospital, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
4 Department of Nursing, Azad University of Maybood Brunch, Yazd Iran
Abstract
Introduction: Due to the increasing mortality rate from trauma, determining the severity of injury has a very important role in the prognosis of the injured person. On the other hand, the quality of medical care provided to the casualties is evaluated using the Trauma Scoring System. Various scales were used to determine the trauma severity of injured. In this study, the most commonly used tools are investigated.
Methods: This review was conducted by searching throughout the Persian data bases of Magiran, Barakat, SID and English databases of Scopus, Web of sciences, PubMed, and Google scholar. To conduct the search, the following keywords were used: "Severity of Trauma", "Trauma scoring", and "Trauma Scoring System" without considering any time intervals. Our early search resulted in 2125 articles. Finally, 17 articles were analyzed and different functions of traumatic assessment tools were compared and studied.
Results: Traumatic assessment methods vary based on the anatomical and physiological parameters and composition of these two methods. In this study, the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) were considered as anatomical parameters; Revised Trauma Score (RTS) as physiological parameters; Trauma Score Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOST) were mentioned as a hybrid ranking system.
Conclusion: Application of accurate scientific evaluations in trauma severity assessment methods and application of each method in its appropriate position would result in appropriate improvements in the development of trauma care. In addition, these systems can play an important role in providing care to patients with traumatic injuries in the present and future.
Keywords
| ARTICLE INFO | ABSTRACT |
| REVIEW ARTICLE | Introduction: Due to the increasing mortality rate from trauma, determining the severity of injury has a very important role in the prognosis of the injured person. On the other hand, the quality of medical care provided to the casualties is evaluated using the Trauma Scoring System. Various scales were used to determine the trauma severity of injured. In this study, the most commonly used tools are investigated. Methods: This review was conducted by searching throughout the Persian data bases of Magiran, Barakat, SID and English databases of Scopus, Web of sciences, PubMed, and Google scholar. To conduct the search, the following keywords were used: "Severity of Trauma", "Trauma scoring", and "Trauma Scoring System" without considering any time intervals. Our early search resulted in 2125 articles. Finally, 17 articles were analyzed and different functions of traumatic assessment tools were compared and studied. Results: Traumatic assessment methods vary based on the anatomical and physiological parameters and composition of these two methods. In this study, the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) were considered as anatomical parameters; Revised Trauma Score (RTS) as physiological parameters; Trauma Score Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOST) were mentioned as a hybrid ranking system. Conclusion: Application of accurate scientific evaluations in trauma severity assessment methods and application of each method in its appropriate position would result in appropriate improvements in the development of trauma care. In addition, these systems can play an important role in providing care to patients with traumatic injuries in the present and future. Keywords: Trauma scoring system; Trauma; Severity of trauma Abbreviations: AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale), ISS (Injury Severity Score), NISS(New ISS), RTS (Revised Trauma Score), TRISS )Trauma Score Injury Severity Score )ASCOST A Severity Characterization of Trauma) |
| Article history: Received: 16 Nov. 2018 Revised: 20 May 2019 Accepted: 10 July 2019 |
|
| *Corresponding author: Adel Eftekhari Address: Department of Health in Emergency and Disaster, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran Email: eftekhari@gmail.com Tel: +98-35-31492226 |
Introduction
| T |
The trauma scoring system has different functions; provides accurate, reliable and demonstrable description about the injuries, and predicts mortality in all circumstances (5). In fact, these systems provide databases that include injured and severity scores, which can assess the quality of care and management of trauma. Furthermore, it estimates the mortality rate, predicts the length of hospital admission, and provides a criterion to monitor trauma centers (3).
Since several years ago, various scales have been used to determine the severity of trauma in casualties; some countries are using these scales currently. These scales use anatomical and physiological criteria as well as combination of them to determine the trauma severity (6). Different studies have provided a review and research of various methods for assessing the severity of trauma and the advantages and disadvantages of the methods. In this study, we tried to explain the calculation method of each case, summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of each process (7-9).
In the present study, we evaluated the methods of measurement, and function of six most commonly used trauma scoring systems (10), including abbreviated injury scale (AIS), injury severity score (ISS), new ISS (NISS) of the anatomical parameters, revised trauma score (RTS) of physiological parameters, trauma score-injury severity score (TRISS), and a severity characterization of trauma (ASCOST), as hybrid ranking systems.
Materials and Methods
This review was conducted by searching the Persian databases including; Danesh Gostar Barakat system, Magiran, SID, and English databases including Scopus, Web of Sciences, PubMed, and the Google scholar using the following keywords: "severity of trauma", "trauma scoring", and "trauma scoring systems" with no time limitation.
Of the total studied databases, 2125 articles were obtained; 1129 Records remained after removing duplicates. Consequently, 1105 articles were excluded after the title and abstract, and 124 full-text articles were analyzed. Furthermore, 14 articles were selected and other articles were excluded due to lack of necessary criteria. Inclusion criteria were studies that indicated one of the six trauma severity assessment methods considered in this study and stated the reason for choosing this method and its computational method. The types of articles (including research, systematic review, etc.) were also included in the study. The included studies' reference lists were investigated and three other articles were included. As a result, a total of 17 related articles were analyzed (Information extracted from each article includes article title, introduced tool, calculation method, application, strengths, weaknesses). The results are shown in Figure 1.
|
Records after removing duplicates (n = 1229)
|
|
Articles and other records screened (n =124)
|
|
Articles and records excluded based on title and abstract (n = 1105)
|
|
Articles and other records assessed for eligibility (n = 17)
|
|
Articles and records excluded based on contents (n = 110)
|
|
Articles and records assessed for references and Additional records identified by other sources (n = 3)
|
|
Articles identified by database searching (n = 2125)
|
Figure 1. Searching and selecting articles
Results
Initially, each trauma scoring system was explained along with the measurement method; then, the methods were compared based on the functionality and non-functionality (Table 1).
Initially, each trauma scoring system was explained along with the measurement method; then, the methods were compared based on the functionality and non-functionality (Table 1).
Table 1. Comparison of the trauma scoring system according to studies
| Row | Trauma scoring system | Function/non-function |
| 1 | Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) | The AIS is an appropriate method to determine the severity of injury to parts of the body, but in a simple description, it is not appropriate among patients with multiple injuries (12,13). |
| 2 | INJURY SEVERITY SCORE (ISS) | It is often calculated in the initial assessment and recovery in the emergency department. It is difficult to predict results for injured people with severe injury to one part of the body. Generally used to evaluate the epidemiology of trauma (14,15). Major limitations are decreasing the ability to classify the ISS in grades higher than 15 (ISS> 15) and higher ages (3). |
| 3 | Trauma Score-Injury Severity Score )TRISS( | Mortality prediction of traumatic brain injuries to evaluate the survival rate of injured patients with regard to their characteristics(13,18,20) |
| 4 | Revised Trauma Score (RTS) | It is more worthwhile to identify traumatic injuries (triage) and determine their need to use specific facilities |
| 5 | ASCOST (A Severity Characterization of Trauma) | An appropriate criterion to identify injuries is without problem. |
| 6 | NISS (NEW ISS) | It is an edited scoring system of ISS. It has more prediction of complications and mortality than ISS. It is more efficient in severe traumas (25, 26). The limitation includes the lack of discrimination among severity of injury in different areas of the body (3). |
1. Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)
One of the first methods to measure the severity of trauma was developed by the Committee on Medical Traffic Disaster (USA) in 1971. Since 1985, its penetrating and non-penetrating wounds were determined separately. From 1971, it was revised in the AIS system six times in different years and the latest change was called AIS-6 (11).
In this method, the amount of injury is investigated in six important parts of the body (head and neck, face, chest, abdomen, limbs, and external surface of the body). The severity of injuries ranges from 1= no injury to 6= fatal injury. Scores one and two are considered as weak to moderate injuries and six is perceived as fatal injuries. The AIS scoring method shows that 1= minor, 2 = moderate, 3 = serious, 4=severe, 5 = critical, and 6 = fatal injury (11).
2. Injury Severity Score (ISS):
Considering that AIS was used to measure the severity of injury in a body organ and was not used for patients with multiple trauma, Baker et al. (1974) invented the ISS system. This system indicates the severity of injury in patients with multiple trauma (9). The ISS is defined as the sum squares of the highest AIS scores in each of the three severely injured physical areas. In the case that there was more than one injury in a particular area of the body, the highest AIS score would be used.
ISS = a2 + b2 + c2
In order to calculate the ISS, the AIS score of each injured body organ should be determined.
Then, three injuries that get the highest AIS scores will be selected. Later, the ISS is calculated by making the sum scores squared (8).
ISS = a2 + b2 + c2
The minimum and maximum ISS rates were three and 75, respectively. It is worth mentioning that if the AIS score of an organ is six (Nonsurvivable), the ISS score will be 75 automatically. In addition, if each of the three scores equals six, the score is calculated as 75 automatically. Since the score of 6 (Nonsurvivable) indicates the importance of having more medical care in life-sustaining, this may mean stopping more care in the patient's preference for a 6 score in each category (10,11).
3. Trauma injury severity score (TRISS):
Trauma injury severity score is a hybrid indicator, in which the patient's age, mechanism of injury, the condition of the symptoms, and vital signs of casualties are considered along with ISS. In order to calculate TRISS, the following equation is used (16, 17).
TRISS = B0 + B1 (RTS) + B2(ISS) + B3(AGE)
In the above-mentioned equation, regression coefficients are calculated using the related coefficients for penetrating and non-penetrating trauma according to the following coefficients.
One of the first methods to measure the severity of trauma was developed by the Committee on Medical Traffic Disaster (USA) in 1971. Since 1985, its penetrating and non-penetrating wounds were determined separately. From 1971, it was revised in the AIS system six times in different years and the latest change was called AIS-6 (11).
In this method, the amount of injury is investigated in six important parts of the body (head and neck, face, chest, abdomen, limbs, and external surface of the body). The severity of injuries ranges from 1= no injury to 6= fatal injury. Scores one and two are considered as weak to moderate injuries and six is perceived as fatal injuries. The AIS scoring method shows that 1= minor, 2 = moderate, 3 = serious, 4=severe, 5 = critical, and 6 = fatal injury (11).
2. Injury Severity Score (ISS):
Considering that AIS was used to measure the severity of injury in a body organ and was not used for patients with multiple trauma, Baker et al. (1974) invented the ISS system. This system indicates the severity of injury in patients with multiple trauma (9). The ISS is defined as the sum squares of the highest AIS scores in each of the three severely injured physical areas. In the case that there was more than one injury in a particular area of the body, the highest AIS score would be used.
ISS = a2 + b2 + c2
In order to calculate the ISS, the AIS score of each injured body organ should be determined.
Then, three injuries that get the highest AIS scores will be selected. Later, the ISS is calculated by making the sum scores squared (8).
ISS = a2 + b2 + c2
The minimum and maximum ISS rates were three and 75, respectively. It is worth mentioning that if the AIS score of an organ is six (Nonsurvivable), the ISS score will be 75 automatically. In addition, if each of the three scores equals six, the score is calculated as 75 automatically. Since the score of 6 (Nonsurvivable) indicates the importance of having more medical care in life-sustaining, this may mean stopping more care in the patient's preference for a 6 score in each category (10,11).
3. Trauma injury severity score (TRISS):
Trauma injury severity score is a hybrid indicator, in which the patient's age, mechanism of injury, the condition of the symptoms, and vital signs of casualties are considered along with ISS. In order to calculate TRISS, the following equation is used (16, 17).
TRISS = B0 + B1 (RTS) + B2(ISS) + B3(AGE)
In the above-mentioned equation, regression coefficients are calculated using the related coefficients for penetrating and non-penetrating trauma according to the following coefficients.
Table 2. Regression coefficients in TRISS equation
| B3 | B2 | B1 | B0 | |
| Non-penetrating trauma | -1,9052 | -0,0768 | 0,9544 | -1,2470 |
| Penetrating trauma | -2,6676 | -0,1516 | 1,430 | -0,6029 |
Age was considered as zero for patients less than 55 years and one for older patients (18, 19).
4. Revised Trauma Score (RTS):
According to three Glasgow Coma Scale
(GCS *), the systolic blood pressure and respiratory rate are calculated according to the following table.
RTS: GCS + SBP + RR
4. Revised Trauma Score (RTS):
According to three Glasgow Coma Scale
(GCS *), the systolic blood pressure and respiratory rate are calculated according to the following table.
RTS: GCS + SBP + RR
Table 3. Coded values of RTS calculation variables
| Coded values | RR | SBP | GCS |
| 4 | 10-29 | >89 | 13-15 |
| 3 | >29 | 76-89 | 9-12 |
| 2 | 6-9 | 50-75 | 6-8 |
| 1 | 1-5 | 1-49 | 4-5 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
* The GCS or Japan Coma Scale (JCS) is a neurological criterion used to determine the depth. In other words, it is used to measure the severity of consciousness decrease among people higher than five years (14, 21).
The GCS consists of three parts. The first part is related to opening of eyes with four scores, the second part is the verbal answer with five scores, and the third part is attributed to motor response with six scores (18).
5. A severity characterization of trauma (ASCOST):
In 1990, another scale called ASCOST was used for the first time. In this method, the anatomical description of the lesion is performed using
the four components A, B, C, and D of the Anatomic Profile (an anatomical method to determine the severity of the trauma). Component A includes all the dangerous injuries (with AIS of more than 2) to the areas of the head, brain, and the spinal cord; component B includes dangerous injuries to the chest and anterior part of the neck; component C includes all harmful injuries (except the follow-ups); and component D includes non-dangerous injuries with AIS of one or two.
In order to calculate the values of each four components, the second root of the AIS total squares is calculated for the injuries related to that organ. The patients 'survival possibility with very appropriate or inappropriate prognoses is already determined (22). This probability is calculated for other patients using this equation:
$('.collapse').on('shown.bs.collapse', function(){
$(this).parent().find(".glyphicon-plus").removeClass("glyphicon-plus").addClass("glyphicon-minus");
}).on('hidden.bs.collapse', function(){
$(this).parent().find(".glyphicon-minus").removeClass("glyphicon-minus").addClass("glyphicon-plus");
});
The GCS consists of three parts. The first part is related to opening of eyes with four scores, the second part is the verbal answer with five scores, and the third part is attributed to motor response with six scores (18).
5. A severity characterization of trauma (ASCOST):
In 1990, another scale called ASCOST was used for the first time. In this method, the anatomical description of the lesion is performed using
the four components A, B, C, and D of the Anatomic Profile (an anatomical method to determine the severity of the trauma). Component A includes all the dangerous injuries (with AIS of more than 2) to the areas of the head, brain, and the spinal cord; component B includes dangerous injuries to the chest and anterior part of the neck; component C includes all harmful injuries (except the follow-ups); and component D includes non-dangerous injuries with AIS of one or two.
In order to calculate the values of each four components, the second root of the AIS total squares is calculated for the injuries related to that organ. The patients 'survival possibility with very appropriate or inappropriate prognoses is already determined (22). This probability is calculated for other patients using this equation:
- Zamani M, Esmailian M, Mirazimi MS, et al. Cause and final outcome of trauma in patients referred to the emergency department; a cross sectional study. Iranian Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2014;1(1):22-7.[Persian]. 2. Sarlak MA, Kolivand P. Effects of Organizational Trauma on Staff Skills in a Private Hospital in Iran. Shefaye Khatam. 2016;4(1):45-54.[Persian] 3. Ebrahimi M, Pirazghandi H, Reihani HR. How is the injury severity scored? a brief review of scoring systems. Reviews in Clinical Medicine. 2015; 2(3):125-8. 4. Salehi SH, Razmjoo I. Prognosis assessment of The Injury Severity Score in traffic accidents. Iranian South Medical Journal. 2006; 9 (1):45-50 [Persian]. 5. Lecky F, Woodford M, Edwards A, et al. Trauma scoring systems and databases. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2014;113(2):286-94. 6. Brenneman FD, Boulanger BR, McLellan BA, et al. Measuring injury severity: time for a change. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery1998;44(4):580-2. 7. Sutherland AG, Johnston AT, Hutchison JD. The new injury severity score: better prediction of functional recovery after musculoskeletal injury. Value in Health. 2006;9(1):24-7. 8. de Alencar Domingues C, Coimbra R, Poggetti RS, et al. New Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) adjustments for survival prediction. World journal of Emergency Surgery. 2018;13(1):12. 9. Senkowski CK, McKenney MG. Trauma scoring systems: a review. Journal of the American College of Surgeons.1999;189(5):491-503. 10. Moradi Lakeh M, Tehrani Banihashemi S, Varasteh Kia G, et al. Comparison of trauma scoring systems for prediction of patients’prognosis. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences. 2002; 9(28):129-37. [Persian]. 11. Lin X, Gao J, Dingyuan D, et al. Value of AIS-ISS for evaluation of trauma in the elderly. Chinese Journal of Trauma. 2014;30(7):702-5. 12. Harwood PJ, Giannoudis PV, Probst C, et al. Which AIS based scoring system is the best predictor of outcome in orthopaedic blunt trauma patients? Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2006;60(2):334-40. 13. Moradi Lakeh M, Tehrani Seyed A, Varasteh Kia G, et al. Comparison of trauma scoring systems for prediction of patients’ prognosis. Iran university of medical sciences. 2003;9(28):129-38. 14. Valderrama-Molina CO, Giraldo N, Constain A, et al. Validation of trauma scales: ISS, NISS, RTS and TRISS for predicting mortality in a Colombian population. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology. 2017;27(2):213-20. 15. Whitaker IY, Gennari TD, Whitaker AL. The difference between ISS and NISS in a series of trauma patients in Brazil. InAnnual Proceedings/Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. 2003; 47:301. 16. Wisner DH. History and current status of trauma scoring systems. Archives of Surgery. 1992; 127(1):111-7. 17. Yousefzadeh-Chabok S, Hosseinpour M, Kouchakinejad-Eramsadati L, et al. Comparison of revised trauma score, injury severity score and trauma and injury severity score for mortality prediction in elderly trauma patients. Turkish Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. 2016;22(6):536-40. 18. Gholipour C, Vahdati SS, Irandoust A, et al. The value of early & post resuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale in prediction of prognosis of blunt trauma patients: A pilot study. Trauma Epidemiology Journal. 2016;1(1):1-3. 19. Oestern H, Kabus K. Comparison of various trauma score systems. An overview. Der Unfallchirurg. 1994;97(4):177-84. 20. Schluter PJ, Nathens A, Neal ML, et al. Trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) coefficients 2009 revision. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2010;68(4):761-70. 21. Taylor MD, Tracy JK, Meyer W, et al. Trauma in the elderly: intensive care unit resource use and outcome. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2002;53(3):407-14. 22. Frankema SP, Edwards MJ, Steyerberg EW, et al. Predicting survival after trauma: A comparison of TRISS and ASCOT in the Netherlands. European Journal of Trauma. 2002;28(6):355-64. 23. Lo JW, Bunce C, Charteris D, et al. A phase III, multi-centre, double-masked randomised controlled trial of adjunctive intraocular and peri-ocular steroid (triamcinolone acetonide) versus standard treatment in eyes undergoing vitreoretinal surgery for open globe trauma (ASCOT): statistical analysis plan. Trials. 2016;17(1):383. 24. Orhon R, Eren SH, Karaday S, et al. Comparison of trauma scores for predicting mortality and morbidity on trauma patients. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2014;20(4):258-64. 25. Shen L, Wei W. Effect of trauma scoring system and combined score on the trauma response of acute trauma; patients. Chinese Journal of
- Practical Nursing. 2016;32(24):1841-4. 26. Cops W, sacco W, champion H, editors. Progress in characterising Anatomic “Injury”,. In proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive medicine; Baltimor, MA, USA. 27. Garcia AF, Sanjuan J, Ortiz AIS, et al. Trauma Severity and Not the Socio-Economic Variables Determine Survival after Penetrating Trauma in a Medium-Income Country. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2015;221(4):S89. 28. Lennquist S. Medical response to major incidents and disasters: a practical guide for all medical staff: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. 29. Champion HR, Copes WS, Sacco WJ, et al. Improved predictions from a severity characterization of trauma (ASCOT) over Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS): results of an independent evaluation. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 1996;40(1):42-9. 30. Bouamra O, Jacques R, Edwards A, et al. Prediction modelling for trauma using comorbidity and ‘true’30-day outcome. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2015;32(12):933-8. 31. Mendoza-Lattes S, Besomi J, O'Sullivan C, et al. Pediatric Spine Trauma in the United States–Analysis of the HCUP Kid'S Inpatient Database (KID) 1997–2009. The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal. 2015;35:135.
)