• Shahram Manoochehry, Masoud Vafabin, Saeid Bitaraf, and Ali Amiri.
• Trauma Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
• Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 1; 7 (1): e6.

IntroductionDescribing injury severity in trauma patients is vital. In some recent articles the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) have been suggested as easily performed and feasible triage tools which can be used in resource-limited settings. The present meta-analysis was performed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of the RTS and KTS in predicting mortality in low-and middle income countries (LMICs).MethodsTwo investigators searched the Web of Science, Embase, and Medline databases and the articles which their exact number of true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative results could be extracted were selected. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis were performed using Stata software version 14 to determine the factor(s) affecting the accuracy of the RTS and KTS in predicting mortality and source(s) of heterogeneity.ResultsThe heterogeneity was high (I2 > 80%) among 11 relevant studies (total n = 20,631). While the sensitivity of the KTS (0.88) was slightly higher than RTS (0.82), the specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and positive likelihood ratio of the KTS (0.73, 20, 0.16, 3.30, respectively) were lower than those of the RTS (0.91, 45, 0.20, 8.90, respectively). The area under the summary-receiver operator characteristic curve for KTS and RTS was 0.88 and 0.93, respectively.ConclusionHowever, regarding accuracy and performance, RTS was better than KTS for distinguishing between mortality and survival; both of them are beneficial trauma scoring tools which can be used in LMICs. Further studies are required to specify the appropriate choice of the RTS or KTS regarding the type of injury and different conditions of the patient.

3 keywords...

hide…