Scoring systems in trauma
Howard Champion  has recently written that ‘severity scales to characterize the nature and extent of injury are important adjuncts to trauma care systems, trauma research and many of the elements of a complete public health approach to injury’. Nobody would dispute this statement. Unfortunately however, 30 years of effort have not yet produced a trauma score that is universally accepted. This is probably because a score that satisfies all needs with adequate sensitivity and specificity is an unachievable goal. Previous contributors to this series of texts have described the characteristics and shortcomings of many of the scores that have been proposed [2, 3]. This chapter gives an overview of the properties of scoring systems and discusses why the search for a universally acceptable trauma score is unlikely to be successful.
KeywordsInjury Severity Score Trauma Center Revise Trauma Score Abbreviate Injury Score Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Score
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Sutcliffe AJ (2000) Update on trauma scoring. In Gullo A (ed) Anaesthesia, pain, intensive care and emergency medicine 14. Springer-Verlag, Milan, pp 411–416Google Scholar
- 5.Vassar MJ, Lewis FR, Chambers JA, et al (1999) Prediction of outcome in intensive care trauma patients: a multicenter study of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), and a 24-hour intensive care unit (ICU) point system. J Trauma 47:324–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.International Trauma Anesthesia and Critical Care Society (1999) Recommendations for uniform reporting of data following major trauma- the Utstein Style: an initiative. Prehospital Disaster Med 14:118–145Google Scholar
- 19.Lorrelli DR, Kralovich KA, Seguin C (2001) The impact of pre-existing end-stage renal disease on survival in acutely injured trauma patients. Am Surg 67:693–696Google Scholar