Has TRISS become an anachronism? A comparison of mortality between the National Trauma Data Bank and Major Trauma Outcome Study databases

The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) has been the approach to trauma outcome prediction during the past 20 years and has been adopted by many commercial registries. Unfortunately, its survival predictions are based upon coefficients that were derived from a data set collected in the 1980s an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 2012-08, Vol.73 (2), p.326-331
Hauptverfasser: Rogers, Frederick B, Osler, Turner, Krasne, Margaret, Rogers, Amelia, Bradburn, Eric H, Lee, John C, Wu, Daniel, McWilliams, Nathan, Horst, Michael A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 331
container_issue 2
container_start_page 326
container_title The journal of trauma and acute care surgery
container_volume 73
creator Rogers, Frederick B
Osler, Turner
Krasne, Margaret
Rogers, Amelia
Bradburn, Eric H
Lee, John C
Wu, Daniel
McWilliams, Nathan
Horst, Michael A
description The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) has been the approach to trauma outcome prediction during the past 20 years and has been adopted by many commercial registries. Unfortunately, its survival predictions are based upon coefficients that were derived from a data set collected in the 1980s and updated only once using a data set collected in the early 1990s. We hypothesized that the improvements in trauma care during the past 20 years would lead to improved survival in a large database, thus making the TRISS biased. The TRISSs from the Pennsylvania statewide trauma registry (Collector, Digital Innovations) for the years 1990 to 2010. Observed-to-expected mortality ratios for each year of the study were calculated by taking the ratio of actual deaths (observed deaths, O) to the summation of the probability of mortality predicted by the TRISS taken over all patients (expected deaths, E). For reference, O/E ratio should approach 1 if the TRISS is well calibrated (i.e., has predictive accuracy). There were 408,489 patients with complete data sufficient to calculate the TRISSs. There was a significant trend toward improved outcome (i.e., decreasing O/E ratio; nonparametric test of trend, p < 0.001) over time in both the total population and the blunt trauma subpopulation. In the penetrating trauma population, there was a trend toward improved outcome (decreasing O/E ratio), but it did not quite reach significance (nonparametric test of trend p = 0.073). There is a steady trend toward improved O/E survival in the Pennsylvania database with each passing year, suggesting that the TRISS is drifting out of calibration. It is likely that improvements in care account for these changes. For the TRISS to remain an accurate outcome prediction model, new coefficients would need to be calculated periodically to keep up with trends in trauma care. This requirement for occasional updating is likely to be a requirement of any trauma prediction model, but because many other deficiencies in the TRISS have been reported, we think that rather than updating the TRISS, it would be more productive to replace the TRISS with a modern statistical model.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/TA.0b013e31825a7758
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1030505890</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1030505890</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-90b3bc752bd727aa43626f21bd75598834cece8100a7385bed37f85ce73592813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUclOxDAMjRAIEPAFSChHLjNkmTTpCQ07EovElHPlpq4otM2QpELzCfw1YT1gWfKz_Z4t2YTsczblLNdHxXzKKsYlSm6EAq2VWSPbgmdywnQm1_-wUltkL4RnlkxluVRqk2wJYWafeJu8X0GgxcP1YkErtK5HCkNysE_eDW3oj-mcpvISfBvcQF1De-cjdG1cJUF8QxxofEJ6B7F1A3S08DD2QM8gAj2B4SUNq-ktPDv_27of49eiRRzrFa0TsYKAYZdsNNAF3PuJO-Tx4rw4vZrc3F9en85vJlZqHic5q2RltRJVrYUGmMlMZI3gKVUqN0bOLFo0nDHQ0qgKa6kboyxqqXJhuNwhh99zl969jhhi2bfBYtfBgG4MJWeSKaZMzhJVflOtdyF4bMqlb3vwq0QqP99QFvPy_xuS6uBnwVj1WP9pfo8uPwAf14ON</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1030505890</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Has TRISS become an anachronism? A comparison of mortality between the National Trauma Data Bank and Major Trauma Outcome Study databases</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Rogers, Frederick B ; Osler, Turner ; Krasne, Margaret ; Rogers, Amelia ; Bradburn, Eric H ; Lee, John C ; Wu, Daniel ; McWilliams, Nathan ; Horst, Michael A</creator><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Frederick B ; Osler, Turner ; Krasne, Margaret ; Rogers, Amelia ; Bradburn, Eric H ; Lee, John C ; Wu, Daniel ; McWilliams, Nathan ; Horst, Michael A</creatorcontrib><description>The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) has been the approach to trauma outcome prediction during the past 20 years and has been adopted by many commercial registries. Unfortunately, its survival predictions are based upon coefficients that were derived from a data set collected in the 1980s and updated only once using a data set collected in the early 1990s. We hypothesized that the improvements in trauma care during the past 20 years would lead to improved survival in a large database, thus making the TRISS biased. The TRISSs from the Pennsylvania statewide trauma registry (Collector, Digital Innovations) for the years 1990 to 2010. Observed-to-expected mortality ratios for each year of the study were calculated by taking the ratio of actual deaths (observed deaths, O) to the summation of the probability of mortality predicted by the TRISS taken over all patients (expected deaths, E). For reference, O/E ratio should approach 1 if the TRISS is well calibrated (i.e., has predictive accuracy). There were 408,489 patients with complete data sufficient to calculate the TRISSs. There was a significant trend toward improved outcome (i.e., decreasing O/E ratio; nonparametric test of trend, p &lt; 0.001) over time in both the total population and the blunt trauma subpopulation. In the penetrating trauma population, there was a trend toward improved outcome (decreasing O/E ratio), but it did not quite reach significance (nonparametric test of trend p = 0.073). There is a steady trend toward improved O/E survival in the Pennsylvania database with each passing year, suggesting that the TRISS is drifting out of calibration. It is likely that improvements in care account for these changes. For the TRISS to remain an accurate outcome prediction model, new coefficients would need to be calculated periodically to keep up with trends in trauma care. This requirement for occasional updating is likely to be a requirement of any trauma prediction model, but because many other deficiencies in the TRISS have been reported, we think that rather than updating the TRISS, it would be more productive to replace the TRISS with a modern statistical model.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2163-0755</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2163-0763</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31825a7758</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22846935</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age Distribution ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cause of Death ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Confidence Intervals ; Databases, Factual ; Female ; Hospital Mortality - trends ; Humans ; Injury Severity Score ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Models, Statistical ; Odds Ratio ; Pennsylvania ; Quality Control ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sex Distribution ; Survival Analysis ; Trauma Centers ; Trauma Severity Indices ; Treatment Outcome ; Wounds and Injuries - diagnosis ; Wounds and Injuries - mortality ; Wounds and Injuries - therapy ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2012-08, Vol.73 (2), p.326-331</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-90b3bc752bd727aa43626f21bd75598834cece8100a7385bed37f85ce73592813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-90b3bc752bd727aa43626f21bd75598834cece8100a7385bed37f85ce73592813</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22846935$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Frederick B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osler, Turner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krasne, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Amelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradburn, Eric H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, John C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McWilliams, Nathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horst, Michael A</creatorcontrib><title>Has TRISS become an anachronism? A comparison of mortality between the National Trauma Data Bank and Major Trauma Outcome Study databases</title><title>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery</title><addtitle>J Trauma Acute Care Surg</addtitle><description>The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) has been the approach to trauma outcome prediction during the past 20 years and has been adopted by many commercial registries. Unfortunately, its survival predictions are based upon coefficients that were derived from a data set collected in the 1980s and updated only once using a data set collected in the early 1990s. We hypothesized that the improvements in trauma care during the past 20 years would lead to improved survival in a large database, thus making the TRISS biased. The TRISSs from the Pennsylvania statewide trauma registry (Collector, Digital Innovations) for the years 1990 to 2010. Observed-to-expected mortality ratios for each year of the study were calculated by taking the ratio of actual deaths (observed deaths, O) to the summation of the probability of mortality predicted by the TRISS taken over all patients (expected deaths, E). For reference, O/E ratio should approach 1 if the TRISS is well calibrated (i.e., has predictive accuracy). There were 408,489 patients with complete data sufficient to calculate the TRISSs. There was a significant trend toward improved outcome (i.e., decreasing O/E ratio; nonparametric test of trend, p &lt; 0.001) over time in both the total population and the blunt trauma subpopulation. In the penetrating trauma population, there was a trend toward improved outcome (decreasing O/E ratio), but it did not quite reach significance (nonparametric test of trend p = 0.073). There is a steady trend toward improved O/E survival in the Pennsylvania database with each passing year, suggesting that the TRISS is drifting out of calibration. It is likely that improvements in care account for these changes. For the TRISS to remain an accurate outcome prediction model, new coefficients would need to be calculated periodically to keep up with trends in trauma care. This requirement for occasional updating is likely to be a requirement of any trauma prediction model, but because many other deficiencies in the TRISS have been reported, we think that rather than updating the TRISS, it would be more productive to replace the TRISS with a modern statistical model.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Distribution</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Cause of Death</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Confidence Intervals</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospital Mortality - trends</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injury Severity Score</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Pennsylvania</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Sex Distribution</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><subject>Trauma Centers</subject><subject>Trauma Severity Indices</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - diagnosis</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - mortality</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - therapy</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>2163-0755</issn><issn>2163-0763</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUclOxDAMjRAIEPAFSChHLjNkmTTpCQ07EovElHPlpq4otM2QpELzCfw1YT1gWfKz_Z4t2YTsczblLNdHxXzKKsYlSm6EAq2VWSPbgmdywnQm1_-wUltkL4RnlkxluVRqk2wJYWafeJu8X0GgxcP1YkErtK5HCkNysE_eDW3oj-mcpvISfBvcQF1De-cjdG1cJUF8QxxofEJ6B7F1A3S08DD2QM8gAj2B4SUNq-ktPDv_27of49eiRRzrFa0TsYKAYZdsNNAF3PuJO-Tx4rw4vZrc3F9en85vJlZqHic5q2RltRJVrYUGmMlMZI3gKVUqN0bOLFo0nDHQ0qgKa6kboyxqqXJhuNwhh99zl969jhhi2bfBYtfBgG4MJWeSKaZMzhJVflOtdyF4bMqlb3vwq0QqP99QFvPy_xuS6uBnwVj1WP9pfo8uPwAf14ON</recordid><startdate>201208</startdate><enddate>201208</enddate><creator>Rogers, Frederick B</creator><creator>Osler, Turner</creator><creator>Krasne, Margaret</creator><creator>Rogers, Amelia</creator><creator>Bradburn, Eric H</creator><creator>Lee, John C</creator><creator>Wu, Daniel</creator><creator>McWilliams, Nathan</creator><creator>Horst, Michael A</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201208</creationdate><title>Has TRISS become an anachronism? A comparison of mortality between the National Trauma Data Bank and Major Trauma Outcome Study databases</title><author>Rogers, Frederick B ; Osler, Turner ; Krasne, Margaret ; Rogers, Amelia ; Bradburn, Eric H ; Lee, John C ; Wu, Daniel ; McWilliams, Nathan ; Horst, Michael A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-90b3bc752bd727aa43626f21bd75598834cece8100a7385bed37f85ce73592813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Distribution</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Cause of Death</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Confidence Intervals</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospital Mortality - trends</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injury Severity Score</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Pennsylvania</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Sex Distribution</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><topic>Trauma Centers</topic><topic>Trauma Severity Indices</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - diagnosis</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - mortality</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - therapy</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Frederick B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osler, Turner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krasne, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Amelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradburn, Eric H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, John C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McWilliams, Nathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horst, Michael A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rogers, Frederick B</au><au>Osler, Turner</au><au>Krasne, Margaret</au><au>Rogers, Amelia</au><au>Bradburn, Eric H</au><au>Lee, John C</au><au>Wu, Daniel</au><au>McWilliams, Nathan</au><au>Horst, Michael A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Has TRISS become an anachronism? A comparison of mortality between the National Trauma Data Bank and Major Trauma Outcome Study databases</atitle><jtitle>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Trauma Acute Care Surg</addtitle><date>2012-08</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>326</spage><epage>331</epage><pages>326-331</pages><issn>2163-0755</issn><eissn>2163-0763</eissn><abstract>The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) has been the approach to trauma outcome prediction during the past 20 years and has been adopted by many commercial registries. Unfortunately, its survival predictions are based upon coefficients that were derived from a data set collected in the 1980s and updated only once using a data set collected in the early 1990s. We hypothesized that the improvements in trauma care during the past 20 years would lead to improved survival in a large database, thus making the TRISS biased. The TRISSs from the Pennsylvania statewide trauma registry (Collector, Digital Innovations) for the years 1990 to 2010. Observed-to-expected mortality ratios for each year of the study were calculated by taking the ratio of actual deaths (observed deaths, O) to the summation of the probability of mortality predicted by the TRISS taken over all patients (expected deaths, E). For reference, O/E ratio should approach 1 if the TRISS is well calibrated (i.e., has predictive accuracy). There were 408,489 patients with complete data sufficient to calculate the TRISSs. There was a significant trend toward improved outcome (i.e., decreasing O/E ratio; nonparametric test of trend, p &lt; 0.001) over time in both the total population and the blunt trauma subpopulation. In the penetrating trauma population, there was a trend toward improved outcome (decreasing O/E ratio), but it did not quite reach significance (nonparametric test of trend p = 0.073). There is a steady trend toward improved O/E survival in the Pennsylvania database with each passing year, suggesting that the TRISS is drifting out of calibration. It is likely that improvements in care account for these changes. For the TRISS to remain an accurate outcome prediction model, new coefficients would need to be calculated periodically to keep up with trends in trauma care. This requirement for occasional updating is likely to be a requirement of any trauma prediction model, but because many other deficiencies in the TRISS have been reported, we think that rather than updating the TRISS, it would be more productive to replace the TRISS with a modern statistical model.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>22846935</pmid><doi>10.1097/TA.0b013e31825a7758</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2163-0755
ispartof The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2012-08, Vol.73 (2), p.326-331
issn 2163-0755
2163-0763
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1030505890
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Age Distribution
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cause of Death
Child
Child, Preschool
Confidence Intervals
Databases, Factual
Female
Hospital Mortality - trends
Humans
Injury Severity Score
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Statistical
Odds Ratio
Pennsylvania
Quality Control
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sex Distribution
Survival Analysis
Trauma Centers
Trauma Severity Indices
Treatment Outcome
Wounds and Injuries - diagnosis
Wounds and Injuries - mortality
Wounds and Injuries - therapy
Young Adult
title Has TRISS become an anachronism? A comparison of mortality between the National Trauma Data Bank and Major Trauma Outcome Study databases
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T18%3A52%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Has%20TRISS%20become%20an%20anachronism?%20A%20comparison%20of%20mortality%20between%20the%20National%20Trauma%20Data%20Bank%20and%20Major%20Trauma%20Outcome%20Study%20databases&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20trauma%20and%20acute%20care%20surgery&rft.au=Rogers,%20Frederick%20B&rft.date=2012-08&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=326&rft.epage=331&rft.pages=326-331&rft.issn=2163-0755&rft.eissn=2163-0763&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/TA.0b013e31825a7758&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1030505890%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1030505890&rft_id=info:pmid/22846935&rfr_iscdi=true