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

ObjectiveThe 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 Syst...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2020-02, Vol.10 (2), p.e032900
Hauptverfasser: Wärnberg Gerdin, Ludvig, Khajanchi, Monty, Kumar, Vineet, Roy, Nobhojit, Saha, Makhan Lal, Soni, Kapil Dev, Mishra, Anurag, Kamble, Jyoti, Borle, Nitin, Verma, Chandrika Prasad, Gerdin Wärnberg, Martin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ObjectiveThe 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.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingThree hospitals in urban India.ParticipantsIn 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 measureThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02838459).
ISSN:2044-6055
2044-6055
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032900