Evaluation of the Revised Trauma Score, MGAP, and GAP scoring systems in predicting mortality of adult trauma patients in a low-resource setting

13Citations
Citations of this article
74Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Numerous trauma scoring systems have been developed in an attempt to accurately and efficiently predict the prognosis of emergent trauma cases. However, it has been questioned as to whether the accuracy and pragmatism of such systems still hold in lower-resource settings that exist in many hospitals in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, it was hypothesized that the physiologically-based Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Mechanism/Glasgow Coma Scale/Age/Pressure (MGAP) score, and Glasgow Coma Scale/Age/Pressure (GAP) score would be effective at predicting mortality outcomes using clinical data at presentation in a representative LMIC hospital in Upper Egypt. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the medical records of trauma patients at Beni-Suef University Hospital. Medical records of all trauma patients admitted to the hospital over the 8-month period from January to August 2016 were reviewed. For each case, the RTS, MGAP, and GAP scores were calculated using clinical data at presentation, and mortality prediction was correlated to the actual in-hospital outcome. Results: The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) was calculated to be 0.879, 0.890, and 0.881 for the MGAP, GAP, and RTS respectively, with all three scores showing good discriminatory ability. With regards to prevalence-dependent statistics, all three scores demonstrated efficacy in ruling out mortality upon presentation with negative predictive values > 95%, while the MGAP score best captured the mortality subgroup with a sensitivity of 94%. Adjustment of cutoff scores showed a steep trade-off between optimizing the positive predictive values versus the sensitivities. Conclusion: The RTS, MGAP, and GAP all showed good discriminatory capabilities per AUROC. Given the relative simplicity and potentially added clinical benefit in capturing critically ill patients, the MGAP score should be further studied for stratifying risk of incoming trauma patients to the emergency department, allowing for more efficacious triage of patients in lower-resource healthcare settings.

References Powered by Scopus

The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care

7719Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Evaluating trauma care: The TRISS method

1943Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The major trauma outcome study: Establishing national norms for trauma care

1049Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Comparison of Injury Severity Score, New Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, and Trauma and Injury Severity Score for Mortality Prediction in Trauma Patients in a Tertiary Care Center

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Prehospital Trauma Scoring Systems for Evaluation of Trauma Severity and Prediction of Outcomes

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Which curve is better? A comparative analysis of trauma scoring systems in a South Asian country

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mohammed, Z., Saleh, Y., AbdelSalam, E. M., Mohammed, N. B. B., El-Bana, E., & Hirshon, J. M. (2022). Evaluation of the Revised Trauma Score, MGAP, and GAP scoring systems in predicting mortality of adult trauma patients in a low-resource setting. BMC Emergency Medicine, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-022-00653-1

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 11

69%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

25%

Researcher 1

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 16

70%

Nursing and Health Professions 5

22%

Environmental Science 1

4%

Sports and Recreations 1

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free