Comparison of emergency department trauma triage performance of clinicians and clinical prediction models: a cohort study in India

LATEST ARTICLES
SEARCH INDEX
SUGGEST ARTICLE
THE OSI COLLECTIONS
AUDIOGRAM SERIES
ABOUT THE OSI
2020 SUMMARY

OSI STATISTICS

Open access articles:
1052
Annotations added:
3
Countries represented:
109
No. of contributors:
13
Bookmarks made:
22

Comparison of emergency department trauma triage performance of clinicians and clinical prediction models: a cohort study in India


JournalBMJ Open
Publication date – Feb – 2020
Authors – Ludvig Wärnberg Gerdin, Monty Khajanchi, Vineet Kumar, Nobhojit Roy, Makhan Lal Saha, Kapil Dev Soni, Anurag Mishra, Jyoti Kamble, Nitin Borle, Chandrika Prasad Verma, Martin Gerdin Wärnberg
Keywordsaccident & emergency medicine, Epidemiology, trauma management
Open access – Yes
SpecialityEmergency surgery, Trauma surgery
World region South-eastern Asia
Country: India
Language – English
Submitted to the One Surgery Index on May 13, 2020 at 8:45 am
Abstract:

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the abilities of clinicians and clinical prediction models to accurately triage emergency department (ED) trauma patients. We compared the decisions made by clinicians with the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), the Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Systolic Blood Pressure (GAP) score, the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) and the Gerdin et al model.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Three hospitals in urban India.

Participants: In total, 7697 adult patients who presented to participating hospitals with a history of trauma were approached for enrolment. The final study sample included 5155 patients. The majority (4023, 78.0%) were male.

Main outcome measure The patient outcome was mortality within 30 days of arrival at the participating hospital. A grid search was used to identify model cut-off values. Clinicians and categorised models were evaluated and compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROCC) and net reclassification improvement in non-survivors (NRI+) and survivors (NRI−) separately.

Results:The differences in AUROCC between each categorised model and the clinicians were 0.016 (95% CI −0.014 to 0.045) for RTS, 0.019 (95% CI −0.007 to 0.058) for GAP, 0.054 (95% CI 0.033 to 0.077) for KTS and −0.007 (95% CI −0.035 to 0.03) for Gerdin et al. The NRI+ for each model were −0.235 (−0.37 to −0.116), 0.17 (−0.042 to 0.405), 0.55 (0.47 to 0.65) and 0.22 (0.11 to 0.717), respectively. The NRI− were 0.385 (0.348 to 0.4), −0.059 (−0.476 to −0.005), −0.162 (−0.18 to −0.146) and 0.039 (−0.229 to 0.06), respectively.

Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that there are no substantial differences in discrimination and net reclassification improvement between clinicians and all four clinical prediction models when using 30-day mortality as the outcome of ED trauma triage in adult patients.

OSI Number – 20364
PMID – 32075827

Public annotations on this article:
No public annotations yet