» Articles » PMID: 28673278

The New Trauma Score (NTS): a Modification of the Revised Trauma Score for Better Trauma Mortality Prediction

Overview
Journal BMC Surg
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2017 Jul 5
PMID 28673278
Citations 38
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Since its introduction, the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) has been widely used to determine the prognosis of trauma patients. Recent studies have revealed a need to change the parameters of the RTS. We have designed a new trauma score (NTS) based on revised parameters, including the adoption of the actual Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score instead of a GCS code, the revision of the systolic blood pressure interval used for the code value and the incorporation of peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO) instead of respiratory rate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive performance of the NTS for in-hospital mortality compared with the RTS and other trauma scores.

Methods: This was a prospective observational study using data from the trauma registry of a tertiary hospital. The subjects were selected from patients who arrived at the ED between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, and, for external validation purposes, those who arrived at the ED between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2013. Demographic data and physiological data were analyzed. NTS models were calculated using logistic regression for GCS score, SBP code values, and SpO. The mortality predictive performance of NTS was compared with that of other trauma scores.

Results: A total of 3263 patients for derivation and 3106 patients for validation were included in the analysis. The NTS showed better discrimination than the RTS (AUC = 0.935 vs. 0.917, respectively, AUC difference = 0.018, p = 0.001; 95% CI, 0.0071-0.0293) and similar discrimination to that of mechanism, Glasgow Coma scale, age, and arterial pressure (MGAP) and the Glasgow Coma Scale, age, and systolic arterial pressure (GAP). In the validation cohort, the global properties of the NTS for mortality prediction were significantly better than those of the RTS (AUC = 0.919 vs. 0.906, respectively; AUC difference = 0.013, p = 0.013; 95% CI, 0.0009-0.0249) and similar to those of the MGAP and GAP.

Conclusions: The NTS predicts in-hospital mortality substantially better than the RTS.

Citing Articles

Predictive factors of mortality in patients with abdominal trauma.

Turan O, Cankaya Gokdere D, Genc M, Bulut B, Akkanoz M, Mutlu H Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2025; 31(3):276-282.

PMID: 40052323 PMC: 11894230. DOI: 10.14744/tjtes.2025.64644.


A new trauma severity scoring system adapted to wearable monitoring: A pilot study.

Lemarquand A, Jannot P, Kammerlocher L, Lissorgues G, Behr M, Arnoux P PLoS One. 2025; 20(3):e0318290.

PMID: 40036212 PMC: 11878944. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318290.


Trauma outcomes differences in females: a prospective analysis of 76 000 trauma patients in the Asia-Pacific region and the contributing factors.

Bin Kunji Mohamad M, Jamaluddin S, Ahmad N, Bahar A, Khalid Z, Binti Mohd Zaki N Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2025; 33(1):34.

PMID: 39994732 PMC: 11852559. DOI: 10.1186/s13049-025-01342-1.


The Predictive Accuracy of the New Trauma Score and the Revised Trauma Score in Predicting the Mortality of Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital in Karachi.

Ali S, Bhatti T, Rimsha S, Hashmi R, Khan S, Rind W Cureus. 2025; 16(12):e76421.

PMID: 39867055 PMC: 11763087. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.76421.


Comparison of GAP, R-GAP, and new trauma score (NTS) systems in predicting mortality of traffic accidents that injure hospitals at Mashhad University of medical sciences.

Kenarangi T, Rahmani F, Yazdani A, Ahmadi G, Lotfi M, Khalaj T Heliyon. 2024; 10(16):e36004.

PMID: 39224324 PMC: 11366929. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36004.


References
1.
Knaus W, Zimmerman J, Wagner D, Draper E, LAWRENCE D . APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med. 1981; 9(8):591-7. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-198108000-00008. View

2.
Graham J, Olchowski A, Gilreath T . How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci. 2007; 8(3):206-13. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9. View

3.
Kauvar D, Lefering R, Wade C . Impact of hemorrhage on trauma outcome: an overview of epidemiology, clinical presentations, and therapeutic considerations. J Trauma. 2006; 60(6 Suppl):S3-11. DOI: 10.1097/01.ta.0000199961.02677.19. View

4.
Severinghaus J, Naifeh K, Koh S . Errors in 14 pulse oximeters during profound hypoxia. J Clin Monit. 1989; 5(2):72-81. DOI: 10.1007/BF01617877. View

5.
Fuller G, Hasler R, Mealing N, Lawrence T, Woodford M, Juni P . The association between admission systolic blood pressure and mortality in significant traumatic brain injury: a multi-centre cohort study. Injury. 2013; 45(3):612-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.09.008. View