• Hideo Tohira, Ian Jacobs, David Mountain, Nick Gibson, and Allen Yeo.
• School of Primary, Aboriginal, and Rural Health Care, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
• Ann Adv Automot Med. 2011 Jan 1; 55: 255-65.

AbstractThe Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome prediction performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (complete dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a complete dataset and a whole dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p<0.0001), while there was no significant difference between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based NISSs. Researchers should be aware of these findings when they select an injury severity scoring tool for their studies.

7 keywords...

hide…