TRISS methodology in trauma

The need for alternatives

D. Demetriades, L. S. Chan, G. Velmahos, T. V. Berne, E. E. Cornwell, H. Belzberg, Juan A. Asensio, J. Murray, J. Berne, W. Shoemaker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

66 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology has become a standard tool for evaluating the performance of trauma centres and identifying cases for critical review. Recent work has identified several limitations and questioned the validity of the methodology in certain types of trauma. Methods. The usefulness and limitations of the TRISS methodology were evaluated in an urban trauma centre. Trauma registry data of 5445 patients with major trauma were analysed with respect to 30 demographic, prehospital, injury severity and hospitalization attributes. The performance of TRISS was measured primarily by the percentage of misclassifications, including false positives and false negatives, comparing the survival status predicted by TRISS with the true status. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were also measured for subgroups defined by the 30 attributes. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant independent factors related to the performance of TRISS. Results. The overall misclassification rate was 4.3 per cent. However, in many subgroups of patients with severe trauma the misclassification rate was very high: 34 per cent in patients older than 54 years with Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 20; 29 per cent in those with fall injuries and ISS above 20; 29 per cent in patients with injuries involving four or more body areas and ISS greater than 20; 28.6 per cent in patients with injuries needing admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and ISS greater than 20; 26.4 per cent in patients in severe distress before reaching hospital with ISS greater than 20; and 26.1 per cent in patients whose ISS score was above 20 and who had complications in hospital. Conclusion. The TRISS methodology has major limitations in many subgroups of patients, especially in severe trauma. In its present form TRISS has no useful role in major urban trauma centres. Its use should be seriously, reconsidered, if not abandoned.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)379-384
Number of pages6
JournalBritish Journal of Surgery
Volume85
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Injury Severity Score
Wounds and Injuries
Trauma Centers

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Demetriades, D., Chan, L. S., Velmahos, G., Berne, T. V., Cornwell, E. E., Belzberg, H., ... Shoemaker, W. (1998). TRISS methodology in trauma: The need for alternatives. British Journal of Surgery, 85(3), 379-384. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00610.x

TRISS methodology in trauma : The need for alternatives. / Demetriades, D.; Chan, L. S.; Velmahos, G.; Berne, T. V.; Cornwell, E. E.; Belzberg, H.; Asensio, Juan A.; Murray, J.; Berne, J.; Shoemaker, W.

In: British Journal of Surgery, Vol. 85, No. 3, 1998, p. 379-384.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Demetriades, D, Chan, LS, Velmahos, G, Berne, TV, Cornwell, EE, Belzberg, H, Asensio, JA, Murray, J, Berne, J & Shoemaker, W 1998, 'TRISS methodology in trauma: The need for alternatives', British Journal of Surgery, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 379-384. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00610.x
Demetriades D, Chan LS, Velmahos G, Berne TV, Cornwell EE, Belzberg H et al. TRISS methodology in trauma: The need for alternatives. British Journal of Surgery. 1998;85(3):379-384. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00610.x
Demetriades, D. ; Chan, L. S. ; Velmahos, G. ; Berne, T. V. ; Cornwell, E. E. ; Belzberg, H. ; Asensio, Juan A. ; Murray, J. ; Berne, J. ; Shoemaker, W. / TRISS methodology in trauma : The need for alternatives. In: British Journal of Surgery. 1998 ; Vol. 85, No. 3. pp. 379-384.
@article{6b00d6fc67f84f1c873c205b9eb77968,
title = "TRISS methodology in trauma: The need for alternatives",
abstract = "Background. Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology has become a standard tool for evaluating the performance of trauma centres and identifying cases for critical review. Recent work has identified several limitations and questioned the validity of the methodology in certain types of trauma. Methods. The usefulness and limitations of the TRISS methodology were evaluated in an urban trauma centre. Trauma registry data of 5445 patients with major trauma were analysed with respect to 30 demographic, prehospital, injury severity and hospitalization attributes. The performance of TRISS was measured primarily by the percentage of misclassifications, including false positives and false negatives, comparing the survival status predicted by TRISS with the true status. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were also measured for subgroups defined by the 30 attributes. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant independent factors related to the performance of TRISS. Results. The overall misclassification rate was 4.3 per cent. However, in many subgroups of patients with severe trauma the misclassification rate was very high: 34 per cent in patients older than 54 years with Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 20; 29 per cent in those with fall injuries and ISS above 20; 29 per cent in patients with injuries involving four or more body areas and ISS greater than 20; 28.6 per cent in patients with injuries needing admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and ISS greater than 20; 26.4 per cent in patients in severe distress before reaching hospital with ISS greater than 20; and 26.1 per cent in patients whose ISS score was above 20 and who had complications in hospital. Conclusion. The TRISS methodology has major limitations in many subgroups of patients, especially in severe trauma. In its present form TRISS has no useful role in major urban trauma centres. Its use should be seriously, reconsidered, if not abandoned.",
author = "D. Demetriades and Chan, {L. S.} and G. Velmahos and Berne, {T. V.} and Cornwell, {E. E.} and H. Belzberg and Asensio, {Juan A.} and J. Murray and J. Berne and W. Shoemaker",
year = "1998",
doi = "10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00610.x",
language = "English",
volume = "85",
pages = "379--384",
journal = "British Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0007-1323",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - TRISS methodology in trauma

T2 - The need for alternatives

AU - Demetriades, D.

AU - Chan, L. S.

AU - Velmahos, G.

AU - Berne, T. V.

AU - Cornwell, E. E.

AU - Belzberg, H.

AU - Asensio, Juan A.

AU - Murray, J.

AU - Berne, J.

AU - Shoemaker, W.

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - Background. Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology has become a standard tool for evaluating the performance of trauma centres and identifying cases for critical review. Recent work has identified several limitations and questioned the validity of the methodology in certain types of trauma. Methods. The usefulness and limitations of the TRISS methodology were evaluated in an urban trauma centre. Trauma registry data of 5445 patients with major trauma were analysed with respect to 30 demographic, prehospital, injury severity and hospitalization attributes. The performance of TRISS was measured primarily by the percentage of misclassifications, including false positives and false negatives, comparing the survival status predicted by TRISS with the true status. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were also measured for subgroups defined by the 30 attributes. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant independent factors related to the performance of TRISS. Results. The overall misclassification rate was 4.3 per cent. However, in many subgroups of patients with severe trauma the misclassification rate was very high: 34 per cent in patients older than 54 years with Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 20; 29 per cent in those with fall injuries and ISS above 20; 29 per cent in patients with injuries involving four or more body areas and ISS greater than 20; 28.6 per cent in patients with injuries needing admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and ISS greater than 20; 26.4 per cent in patients in severe distress before reaching hospital with ISS greater than 20; and 26.1 per cent in patients whose ISS score was above 20 and who had complications in hospital. Conclusion. The TRISS methodology has major limitations in many subgroups of patients, especially in severe trauma. In its present form TRISS has no useful role in major urban trauma centres. Its use should be seriously, reconsidered, if not abandoned.

AB - Background. Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology has become a standard tool for evaluating the performance of trauma centres and identifying cases for critical review. Recent work has identified several limitations and questioned the validity of the methodology in certain types of trauma. Methods. The usefulness and limitations of the TRISS methodology were evaluated in an urban trauma centre. Trauma registry data of 5445 patients with major trauma were analysed with respect to 30 demographic, prehospital, injury severity and hospitalization attributes. The performance of TRISS was measured primarily by the percentage of misclassifications, including false positives and false negatives, comparing the survival status predicted by TRISS with the true status. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were also measured for subgroups defined by the 30 attributes. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant independent factors related to the performance of TRISS. Results. The overall misclassification rate was 4.3 per cent. However, in many subgroups of patients with severe trauma the misclassification rate was very high: 34 per cent in patients older than 54 years with Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 20; 29 per cent in those with fall injuries and ISS above 20; 29 per cent in patients with injuries involving four or more body areas and ISS greater than 20; 28.6 per cent in patients with injuries needing admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and ISS greater than 20; 26.4 per cent in patients in severe distress before reaching hospital with ISS greater than 20; and 26.1 per cent in patients whose ISS score was above 20 and who had complications in hospital. Conclusion. The TRISS methodology has major limitations in many subgroups of patients, especially in severe trauma. In its present form TRISS has no useful role in major urban trauma centres. Its use should be seriously, reconsidered, if not abandoned.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=15144357942&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=15144357942&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00610.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00610.x

M3 - Article

VL - 85

SP - 379

EP - 384

JO - British Journal of Surgery

JF - British Journal of Surgery

SN - 0007-1323

IS - 3

ER -