Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2024, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (1): 157-160. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2024.01.024

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Consistency of injury severity score in severe trauma patients

Yifan CHEN,Zhongdi LIU,Peng ZHANG,Wei HUANG*()   

  1. National Center for Trauma Medicine, Trauma Medicine Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China
  • Received:2023-05-05 Online:2024-02-18 Published:2024-02-06
  • Contact: Wei HUANG E-mail:hwei1104@163.com

RICH HTML

  

Abstract:

Objective: To determine the accuracy of injury severity score (ISS)in the assessment of patients with severe trauma by the consistency analysis of the patients'ISS with severe trauma scored by three clinicians, and to guide the allocation of medical resource. Methods: Through retrospective analysis of 100 patients with serious or severe trauma admitted to Peking University People's Hospital since September 2020 to December 2021 (ISS≥16 points), we conducted a consistency analysis of ISS within different evaluators. The general information (gender, age), vital signs, physical examination, imaging, laboratory examination and other associated data of the patients after admission were retrospectively diagnosed by 3 clinicians specializing in trauma surgery and ISS was determined. SPSS 22.0 software was used for statistical analysis, descriptive reports were made on the observed values of each set of data, and Fleiss kappa test was used for consistency analysis of the credibility of the ISS within three clinicians. Results: Through the consistency analysis of the ISS in 100 patients with severe trauma scored by 3 eva-luators, the total Fleiss kappa value was 0.581, and the overall consistency was medium. Consistency analysis of the different scores was conducted according to the calculation rules of ISS. Among the patients with single-site severe trauma, abbreviated injury scale (AIS) was 4 or 5 points, ISS was 16 or 25 points, and Fleiss kappa value was 0.756 and 0.712 within the three evaluators, showing a relatively high consistency. AIS of each part was more than 4 points, and total ISS was more than 41 points in the severe trauma patients, Fleiss kappa values are higher than 0.8 within the 3 evaluators, showing a high consistency. Conclusion: According to the consistency analysis of severe trauma patients ISS within the three evaluators, when the severe trauma patients with ISS≥16 points are treated or transported, there is a certain accuracy error when the score is used for inter-department communication or inter-hospital transportation, and the consistency of different evaluators for the same injury is moderate. It may lead to misjudgment of the severity of trauma and misallocation of medical resources. However, for trauma patients with single or multiple site AIS≥4 points, ISS is highly consistent among different evaluators, which can accurately indicate the severity of the patient's condition.

Key words: Severe trauma, Injury severity, Consistency

CLC Number: 

  • R642

Table 1

Baseline data of patients with severe multiple injuries"

Variables Data
Age/years, M (min,max) 52 (14,87)
Gender, n (%)
    Male 72 (72)
    Female 28 (28)
Mechanism of injury, n (%)
    Traffic accident 58 (58)
    Fall from height 23 (23)
    Tumbles injury 13 (13)
    Blast injury 4 (4)
    Stab injury 2 (2)
ISS, M (min,max) 25 (16,75)

Table 2

Consistency analysis results of Fleiss kappa test for each ISS Scores within 3 evaluators"

ISS score Fleiss kappa Z value P value 95%CI
14 0.493 8.543 < 0.001 0.492,0.494
16 0.756 13.091 < 0.001 0.755,0.757
17 0.511 8.857 < 0.001 0.510,0.512
18 0.645 11.178 < 0.001 0.644,0.646
19 0.122 2.120 0.034 0.121,0.123
20 0.390 6.752 < 0.001 0.389,0.391
21 0.660 11.429 < 0.001 0.659,0.661
22 0.382 6.615 < 0.001 0.381,0.383
24 0.550 9.534 < 0.001 0.549,0.551
25 0.712 12.339 < 0.001 0.711,0.713
26 0.252 4.360 < 0.001 0.251,0.253
27 0.550 9.534 < 0.001 0.549,0.551
28 -0.003 -0.058 0.954 -0.004,-0.002
29 0.483 8.362 < 0.001 0.482,0.484
30 -0.007 -0.116 0.907 -0.008,-0.006
31 -0.007 -0.116 0.907 -0.008,-0.006
32 0.327 5.657 < 0.001 0.326,0.328
33 0.427 7.400 < 0.001 0.426,0.428
34 0.764 13.226 < 0.001 0.763,0.765
35 0.327 5.657 < 0.001 0.326,0.328
36 0.327 5.657 < 0.001 0.326,0.328
41 0.920 15.928 < 0.001 0.919,0.921
45 0.872 15.096 < 0.001 0.871,0.873
57 1.000 17.321 < 0.001 0.999,1.001
66 1.000 17.321 < 0.001 0.999,1.001
75 1.000 17.321 < 0.001 0.999,1.001
1 朱佩芳. 损伤严重程度评分的演进[J]. 中华创伤杂志, 2005, 21 (1): 39- 42.
2 Maduz R , Kugelmeier P , Meili S , et al. Major influence of interobserver reliability on polytrauma identification with the injury severity score (ISS): Time for a centralised coding in trauma registries?[J]. Injury, 2017, 48 (4): 885- 889.
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.02.015
3 Twiss E , Krijnen P , Schipper I , et al. Accuracy and reliability of injury coding in the national Dutch Trauma Registry[J]. Int J Qual Health Care, 2021, 33 (1): mzab041.
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab041
4 周志道, 冯须, 王绍光, 等. 矿区骨盆骨折125例分析[J]. 煤矿医学, 1983, 5 (3): 20- 22.
5 都定元. 创伤评分的演进与AIS 2005[J]. 创伤外科杂志, 2006, 8 (3): 193- 197.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-4237.2006.03.001
6 李思齐, 汤曼力, 高伟, 等. AIS-ISS法在评估多发伤病情及预后中的作用[J]. 创伤外科杂志, 2005, 7 (5): 357- 359.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-4237.2005.05.014
7 赵威, 黄杨, 王玉同, 等. 损伤严重程度评分对重度创伤病情评估的意义与预后相关性研究[J]. 临床误诊误治, 2014, 27 (1): 7- 10.
8 马飞. ISS评分对严重创伤患者病情及预后的预测价值[J]. 海南医学, 2018, 29 (6): 789- 791.
9 陈小凤, 阳文新, 孙守松, 等. ISS评分与CRAMS评分在多发伤患者预后评估中的应用[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2017, 26 (6): 664- 668.
10 王曼维, 李岩, 鱼锋, 等. 基于ISS评估急诊科多发创伤患者滞留时间与其转归分析[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2020, 29 (4): 578- 581.
11 梁建军, 徐飞, 廖阳, 等. ISS与APACHEⅡ评分对急诊多发伤患者伤情评估的价值分析[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2020, 20 (6): 1138- 1141.
[1] Fu-zheng GUO,Xiu-juan ZHAO,Jiu-xu DENG,Zhe DU,Tian-bing WANG,Feng-xue ZHU. Early changes within the lymphocyte population are associated with the long term prognosis in severely injured patients [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(3): 552-556.
[2] Zhe DU,Wei HUANG,Zhi-wei WANG,Jing ZHOU,Jian XIONG,Ming LI,Peng ZHANG,Zhong-di LIU,Feng-xue ZHU,Chuan-lin WANG,Bao-guo JIANG,Tian-bing WANG. Application of multidisciplinary team (MDT) in the treatment of severe trauma [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(2): 298-301.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!