• Adrina Habibzadeh, Aref Andishgar, Sina Kardeh, Omid Keshavarzian, Reza Taheri, Reza Tabrizi, and Pedram Keshavarz.
• Student Research Committee, Fasa University of Medical Sciences, Fasa, Iran; USERN Office, Fasa University of Medical Sciences, Fasa, Iran.
• World Neurosurg. 2023 Oct 1; 178: e371e381e371-e381.

ObjectiveAccurate prediction of the morbidity and mortality outcomes of traumatic brain injury patients is still challenging. In the present study, we aimed to compare the predictive value of the Richmond and Rotterdam scoring systems as two novel computed tomography-based predictive models.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 1400 subjects who suffered from severe traumatic brain injury and were admitted to Emtiaz Hospital, a tertiary referral trauma center in Shiraz, south of Iran, from January 2018 to December 2019. We evaluated the 1-month results; considering two primary factors: mortality and morbidity. The patients' condition was the basis for this assessment. We conducted a logistic regression analysis to determine the association between scoring systems and outcomes. To determine the optimal threshold value, we utilized the receiver operating characteristic curve model.ResultsThe mean age of participants was 36.61 ± 17.58 years, respectively. Concerning predicting the mortality rate, the area under the curve (AUC) for the Rotterdam score was relatively low 0.64 (95% confidence interval: 0.60, 0.67), while the Richmond score had a higher AUC 0.74 (0.71-0.77), which demonstrated the superiority of this scoring system. Moreover, the Richmond score was more accurate for predicting 1-month morbidity with AUC: 0.71 (0.69, 0.74) versus 0.62 (0.59, 0.65).ConclusionsThe Richmond scoring system demonstrated more accurate predictions for the present outcomes. The simplicity and predictive value of the Richmond score make this system an ideal option for use in emergency settings and centers with high patient loads.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…