• John R Clarke, Andrew V Ragone, and Lloyd Greenwald.
• Department of Surgery, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. jclarke@linc.cis.upenn.edu
• J Trauma. 2005 Sep 1;59(3):563-7; discussion 567-9.

BackgroundWe conducted a comparison of methods for predicting survival using survival risk ratios (SRRs), including new comparisons based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) versus Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) six-digit codes.MethodsFrom the Pennsylvania trauma center's registry, all direct trauma admissions were collected through June 22, 1999. Patients with no comorbid medical diagnoses and both ICD-9 and AIS injury codes were used for comparisons based on a single set of data. SRRs for ICD-9 and then for AIS diagnostic codes were each calculated two ways: from the survival rate of patients with each diagnosis and when each diagnosis was an isolated diagnosis. Probabilities of survival for the cohort were calculated using each set of SRRs by the multiplicative ICISS method and, where appropriate, the minimum SRR method. These prediction sets were then internally validated against actual survival by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic.ResultsThe 41,364 patients had 1,224 different ICD-9 injury diagnoses in 32,261 combinations and 1,263 corresponding AIS injury diagnoses in 31,755 combinations, ranging from 1 to 27 injuries per patient. All conventional ICD-9-based combinations of SRRs and methods had better Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic fits than their AIS-based counterparts. The minimum SRR method produced better calibration than the multiplicative methods, presumably because it did not magnify inaccuracies in the SRRs that might occur with multiplication.ConclusionPredictions of survival based on anatomic injury alone can be performed using ICD-9 codes, with no advantage from extra coding of AIS diagnoses. Predictions based on the single worst SRR were closer to actual outcomes than those based on multiplying SRRs.

14 keywords...

hide…