The Experts below are selected from a list of 297 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Cameron S Palmer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Abbreviated Injury Scale is well described a letter to the editor re loftis et al evolution of the Abbreviated Injury Scale 1990 2015
Traffic Injury Prevention, 2019Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Hideo TohiraAbstract:AbstractObjective: A recent study published in this journal has provided a description and summary of changes made to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) through the 5 latest versions. However, there has already been a considerable body of related research published during the past decade.Methods: A brief narrative review of recent research in this field is presented.Results: Over the past decade, considerable research has been undertaken to describe the code set differences that have arisen between different AIS versions. Much of this research has been focused on developing or evaluating mapping tools to provide continuity in how the AIS has been used to describe Injury over time. In addition, severity changes and changes by body region have also been summarized for some AIS versions.Conclusions: The changes that have been successively introduced to the AIS since 1990 have been well documented, and validated strategies to enable registries to adjust for AIS change are well established. However, further re...
-
The Abbreviated Injury Scale is well described: A letter to the Editor re: Loftis et al., “Evolution of the Abbreviated Injury Scale: 1990–2015”
Traffic Injury Prevention, 2019Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Hideo TohiraAbstract:AbstractObjective: A recent study published in this journal has provided a description and summary of changes made to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) through the 5 latest versions. However, there has already been a considerable body of related research published during the past decade.Methods: A brief narrative review of recent research in this field is presented.Results: Over the past decade, considerable research has been undertaken to describe the code set differences that have arisen between different AIS versions. Much of this research has been focused on developing or evaluating mapping tools to provide continuity in how the AIS has been used to describe Injury over time. In addition, severity changes and changes by body region have also been summarized for some AIS versions.Conclusions: The changes that have been successively introduced to the AIS since 1990 have been well documented, and validated strategies to enable registries to adjust for AIS change are well established. However, further re...
-
defining major trauma using the 2008 Abbreviated Injury Scale
Injury-international Journal of The Care of The Injured, 2016Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Belinda J Gabbe, Peter CameronAbstract:Abstract Background The Injury Severity Score (ISS) is the most ubiquitous summary score derived from Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) data. It is frequently used to classify patients as ‘major trauma’ using a threshold of ISS >15. However, it is not known whether this is still appropriate, given the changes which have been made to the AIS codeset since this threshold was first used. This study aimed to identify appropriate ISS and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) thresholds for use with the 2008 AIS (AIS08) which predict mortality and in-hospital resource use comparably to ISS >15 using AIS98. Methods Data from 37,760 patients in a state trauma registry were retrieved and reviewed. AIS data coded using the 1998 AIS (AIS98) were mapped to AIS08. ISS and NISS were calculated, and their effects on patient classification compared. The ability of selected ISS and NISS thresholds to predict mortality or high-level in-hospital resource use (the need for ICU or urgent surgery) was assessed. Results An ISS >12 using AIS08 was similar to an ISS >15 using AIS98 in terms of both the number of patients classified major trauma, and overall major trauma mortality. A 10% mortality level was only seen for ISS 25 or greater. A NISS >15 performed similarly to both of these ISS thresholds. However, the AIS08-based ISS >12 threshold correctly classified significantly more patients than a NISS >15 threshold for all three severity measures assessed. Conclusions When coding injuries using AIS08, an ISS >12 appears to function similarly to an ISS >15 in AIS98 for the purposes of identifying a population with an elevated risk of death after Injury. Where mortality is a primary outcome of trauma monitoring, an ISS >12 threshold could be adopted to identify major trauma patients. Level of evidence Level II evidence—diagnostic tests and criteria.
-
mapping Abbreviated Injury Scale data from 1990 to 1998 versions a stepping stone in the contemporary evaluation of trauma
Injury-international Journal of The Care of The Injured, 2013Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Belinda J Gabbe, Jacelle Lang, Glen Russell, Natalie Dallow, Kathy Harvey, Peter CameronAbstract:Abstract Introduction Many trauma registries have used the 1990 revision of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS; AIS90) to code injuries sustained by trauma patients. Due to changes made to the AIS codeset since its release, AIS90-coded data lacks currency in the assessment of Injury severity. The ability to map between the 1998 revision of AIS (AIS98) and the current (2008) AIS version (AIS08) already exists. The development of a map for transforming AIS90-coded data into AIS98 would therefore enable contemporary Injury severity estimates to be derived from AIS90-coded data. Methods Differences between the AIS90 and AIS98 codesets were identified, and AIS98 maps were generated for AIS90 codes which changed or were not present in AIS98. The effectiveness of this map in describing the severity of trauma using AIS90 and AIS98 was evaluated using a large state registry dataset, which coded Injury data using AIS90 over several years. Changes in Injury Severity Scores (ISS) calculated using AIS90 and mapped AIS98 codesets were assessed using three distinct methods. Results Forty-nine codes (out of 1312) from the AIS90 codeset changed or were not present in AIS98. Twenty-four codes required the assignment of maps to AIS98 equivalents. AIS90-coded data from 78,075 trauma cases were used to evaluate the map. Agreement in calculated ISS between coded AIS90 data and mapped AIS98 data was very high (kappa = 0.971). The ISS changed in 1902 cases (2.4%), and the mean difference in ISS across all cases was 0.006 points. The number of cases classified as major trauma using AIS98 decreased by 0.8% compared with AIS90. A total of 3102 cases (4.0%) sustained at least one AIS90 Injury which required mapping to AIS98. Conclusions This study identified the differences between the AIS90 and AIS98 codesets, and generated maps for the conversion process. In practice, the differences between AIS90- and AIS98-coded data were very small. As a result, AIS90-coded data can be mapped to the current AIS version (AIS08) via AIS98, with little apparent impact on the functional accuracy of the mapped dataset produced.
-
differences and discrepancies between 2005 and 2008 Abbreviated Injury Scale versions time to standardise
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 2012Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Kjetil G Ringdal, Morten HestnesAbstract:The aim of this letter is to facilitate the standardisation of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codesets used to code injuries in trauma registries. We have compiled a definitive list of the changes which have been implemented between the AIS 2005 and Update 2008 versions. While the AIS 2008 codeset appears to have remained consistent since its release, we have identified discrepancies between the codesets in copies of AIS 2005 dictionaries. As a result, we recommend that use of the AIS 2005 should be discontinued in favour of the Update 2008 version.
Maria Segui Gomez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
grado de correlacion entre las versiones 98 y 2005 actualizacion 2008 de la Abbreviated Injury Scale ais en la categorizacion del paciente traumatologico grave
Emergencias, 2018Co-Authors: Rebeca Abajas Bustillo, Mark R. Zonfrillo, Cesar Leal Costa, Maria Del Carmen Ortego Mate, Maria Segui GomezAbstract:espanolObjetivos. Estudiar si existen diferencias en la asignacion de gravedad entre las versiones 98 y 2005 –actualizacion 2008– de la escala Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) y determinar si estas posibles diferencias podrian tener repercusion en la definicion de paciente traumatologico grave. Metodo. Estudio descriptivo de una serie de casos con analisis transversal que incluyo a pacientes ingresados por lesiones debidas a causas externas en dos hospitales espanoles, llevado a cabo entre febrero de 2012 y febrero de 2013. Se calculo el Injury Severity Score (ISS) y el New Injury Severity Score (NISS) de cada uno de los casos con ambas versiones de la escala AIS. Resultados. La muestra estuvo compuesta por 699 casos, con una edad media de 52,7 (DE 29,2) anos, de los cuales 388 (55,5%) fueron varones. Se obtuvo una mayor clasificacion de pacientes graves con la version AIS 98, tanto para el ISS (2,6%) como el NISS (2,9%). Conclusiones. La version AIS 2005 –actualizacion 2008– clasifica un menor numero de pacientes como graves en comparacion con la version AIS 98. EnglishObjectives. To explore differences in severity classifications according to 2 versions of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS): version 2005 (the 2008 update) and the earlier version 98. To determine whether possible differences might have an impact on identifying severe trauma patients. Methods. Descriptive study and cross-sectional analysis of a case series of patients admitted to two spanish hospitals with out-of-hospital injuries between February 2012 and February 2013. For each patient we calculated the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and the AIS scores according to versions 98 and 2005. Results. The sample included 699 cases. The mean Severity (SD) age of patients was 52.7 (29.2) years, and 388 (55.5%) were males. Version 98 of the AIS correlated more strongly with both the ISS (2.6%) and the NISS (2.9%). Conclusion. The 2008 update of the AIS (version 2005) classified fewer trauma patients than version 98 at the severity levels indicated by the ISS and NISS.
-
impacto de la version de la Abbreviated Injury Scale en la categorizacion del paciente grave en espana
Emergencias, 2017Co-Authors: Rebeca Abajas Bustillo, Mark R. Zonfrillo, Cesar Leal Costa, Maria Del Carmen Ortego Mate, Maria Segui GomezAbstract:Objetivos: Identificar si existen diferencias en la asignacion de gravedad con la escala Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) en sus versiones AIS 98 y AIS 2005 (08) y determinar si estas tienen repercusion en la definicion de paciente grave. Metodo: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de corte transversal mediante revision de 749 historias clinicas en el Hospital Universitario Marques de Valdecilla de Cantabria (HUMV) y el Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra (CHN). Se realizo codificacion manual de todas las lesiones en las versiones AIS 98 y AIS 2005 (08) por especialista en AIS certificada. Se calculo el Injury Severity Score (ISS) y el New Injury Severity Score (NISS). Resultados: Al analizar los valores del ISS y NISS, se observo un mayor numero de pacientes en la version AIS 05 (08) para los valores ISS 1-8, y un mayor numero de pacientes para los valores ISS 9-14, 16-24 y >24 en la version AIS 98. Conclusiones: La caracterizacion de gravedad para un mismo paciente es en general menor con la version AIS 2005 (08) vs AIS 98. Datos de diferentes versiones deben ser recodificados para asegurar la comparabilidad de los mismos. La disminucion de la gravedad de las lesiones con la version AIS 2005 (08), obliga a replantearse la definicion de paciente grave como aquel que tiene un ISS>15. Palabras clave: Escala Resumida de Traumatismos, Indices de Gravedad del Trauma, Puntaje de Gravedad del Traumatismo , Gravedad del Paciente, Codificacion Clinica.
Hideo Tohira - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Abbreviated Injury Scale is well described a letter to the editor re loftis et al evolution of the Abbreviated Injury Scale 1990 2015
Traffic Injury Prevention, 2019Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Hideo TohiraAbstract:AbstractObjective: A recent study published in this journal has provided a description and summary of changes made to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) through the 5 latest versions. However, there has already been a considerable body of related research published during the past decade.Methods: A brief narrative review of recent research in this field is presented.Results: Over the past decade, considerable research has been undertaken to describe the code set differences that have arisen between different AIS versions. Much of this research has been focused on developing or evaluating mapping tools to provide continuity in how the AIS has been used to describe Injury over time. In addition, severity changes and changes by body region have also been summarized for some AIS versions.Conclusions: The changes that have been successively introduced to the AIS since 1990 have been well documented, and validated strategies to enable registries to adjust for AIS change are well established. However, further re...
-
The Abbreviated Injury Scale is well described: A letter to the Editor re: Loftis et al., “Evolution of the Abbreviated Injury Scale: 1990–2015”
Traffic Injury Prevention, 2019Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Hideo TohiraAbstract:AbstractObjective: A recent study published in this journal has provided a description and summary of changes made to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) through the 5 latest versions. However, there has already been a considerable body of related research published during the past decade.Methods: A brief narrative review of recent research in this field is presented.Results: Over the past decade, considerable research has been undertaken to describe the code set differences that have arisen between different AIS versions. Much of this research has been focused on developing or evaluating mapping tools to provide continuity in how the AIS has been used to describe Injury over time. In addition, severity changes and changes by body region have also been summarized for some AIS versions.Conclusions: The changes that have been successively introduced to the AIS since 1990 have been well documented, and validated strategies to enable registries to adjust for AIS change are well established. However, further re...
-
comparison of tables that map the Abbreviated Injury Scale 1998 version to the 2008 version
2013 IRCOBI ConferenceVOLVOHumaneticsAutolivToyotaNissan Motor Co Ltd JapanCollision Research & Analysis Inc.JP Research Inc.BritaxJASTI Co. LTDDivers, 2013Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, Ian Jacobs, David Mountain, Nicholas P GibsonAbstract:Two modified mapping tables that convert Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 98 codes to AIS 2008 codes have been separately developed by Palmer et al. (P‐map) and Tohira et al. (T‐map). The authors aimed to determine which map gives the most accurate code conversion. The authors computed the intraclass correlation coefficients for the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the New ISS (NISS) and the Maximum AIS (MAIS) of six body regions using the mapped AIS 2008 codes and the manually determined AIS 2008 codes (gold standard). The authors also applied post‐hoc severity adjustment to the mapped AIS 2008 codes. The ISS and NISS based on the two maps showed substantial agreement with the gold standard. The chest region MAIS of the P‐map and the extremities region MAIS of both maps demonstrated moderate agreement with the gold standard, while the MAISs of the other regions displayed substantial agreement. The post‐hoc severity adjustment for the P‐map significantly improved the agreement for the chest region MAIS. The Injury severity scores based on the two maps displayed similar agreement with the gold standard. The post‐hoc severity adjustment provided by the P‐map might be better at adjusting for severity levels than that provided by the T‐map.
-
validation of a modified table to map the 1998 Abbreviated Injury Scale to the 2008 Scale and the use of adjusted severities
Journal of Trauma-injury Infection and Critical Care, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, Ian Jacobs, David Mountain, Nick Gibson, Masato Ueno, Hiroaki WatanabeAbstract:BACKGROUND: : The Abbreviated Injury Scale 2008 (AIS 2008) is the most recent Injury coding system. A mapping table from a previous AIS 98 to AIS 2008 is available. However, AIS 98 codes that are unmappable to AIS 2008 codes exist in this table. Furthermore, some AIS 98 codes can be mapped to multiple candidate AIS 2008 codes with different severities. We aimed to modify the original table to adjust the severities and to validate these changes. METHODS: : We modified the original table by adding links from unmappable AIS 98 codes to AIS 2008 codes. We applied the original table and our modified table to AIS 98 codes for major trauma patients. We also assigned candidate codes with different severities the weighted averages of their severities as an adjusted severity. The proportion of cases whose Injury severity scores (ISSs) were computable were compared. We also compared the agreement of the ISS and New ISS (NISS) between manually determined AIS 2008 codes (MAN) and mapped codes by using our table (MAP) with unadjusted or adjusted severities. RESULTS: : All and 72.3% of cases had their ISSs computed by our modified table and the original table, respectively. The agreement between MAN and MAP with respect to the ISS and NISS was substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.939 for ISS and 0.943 for NISS). Using adjusted severities, the agreements of the ISS and NISS improved to 0.953 (p = 0.11) and 0.963 (p = 0.007), respectively. CONCLUSION: : Our modified mapping table seems to allow more ISSs to be computed than the original table. Severity scores exhibited substantial agreement between MAN and MAP. The use of adjusted severities improved these agreements further. Language: en
-
Comparisons of the Outcome Prediction Performance of Injury Severity Scoring Tools Using the Abbreviated Injury Scale 90 Update 98 (AIS 98) and 2005 Update 2008 (AIS 2008)
Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, Ian Jacobs, David Mountain, Nick GibsonAbstract:The 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
Mark R. Zonfrillo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
New Methodology for an Expert-Designed Map From International Classification of Diseases (ICD) to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ Severity Injury.
Traffic injury prevention, 2020Co-Authors: Mark R. Zonfrillo, Janet P Price, Patrick J Gillich, Ashley A. Weaver, Joel D. StitzelAbstract:There has been a longstanding desire for a map to convert International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Injury codes to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes to reflect the severity of those diagnoses. The Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM) was tasked by European Union representatives to create a categorical map classifying diagnoses codes as serious Injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] 3+), minor/moderate Injury (AIS 1/2), or indeterminate. This study's objective was to map Injury-related ICD-9-CM (clinical modification) and ICD-10-CM codes to these severity categories. Approximately 19,000 ICD codes were mapped, including injuries from the following categories: amputations, blood vessel Injury, burns, crushing Injury, dislocations/sprains/strains, foreign body, fractures, internal organ, nerve/spinal cord Injury, intracranial, laceration, open wounds, and superficial Injury/contusion. Two parallel activities were completed to create the maps: (1) An in-person expert panel and (2) an electronic survey. The panel consisted of expert users of AIS and ICD from North America, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The panel met in person for 5 days, with follow-up virtual meetings to create and revise the maps. Additional qualitative data were documented to resolve potential discrepancies in mapping. The electronic survey was completed by 95 Injury coding professionals from North America, Spain, Australia, and New Zealand over 12 weeks. ICD-to-AIS maps were created for: ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM. Both maps indicated whether the corresponding AIS 2005/Update 2008 severity score for each ICD code was AIS 3+, 1/2, or indeterminable. Though some ICD codes could be mapped to multiple AIS codes, the maximum severity of all potentially mapped injuries determined the final severity categorization. The in-person panel consisted of 13 experts, with 11 Certified AIS specialists (CAISS) with a median of 8 years and an average of 15 years of coding experience. Consensus was reached for AIS severity categorization for all Injury-related ICD codes. There were 95 survey respondents, with a median of 8 years of Injury coding experience. Approximately 15 survey responses were collected per ICD code. Results from the 2 activities were compared, and any discrepancies were resolved using additional qualitative and quantitative data from the in-person panel and survey results, respectively. Robust maps of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM Injury codes to AIS severity categories (3+ versus <3) were successfully created from an in-person panel discussion and electronic survey. These maps provide a link between the common ICD diagnostic lexicons and the AIS severity coding system and are of value to Injury researchers, public health scientists, and epidemiologists using large databases without available AIS coding.
-
Classification of the severe trauma patient with the Abbreviated Injury Scale: degree of correlation between versions 98 and 2005 (2008 update).
Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias, 2018Co-Authors: Abajas Bustillo R, Mark R. Zonfrillo, Leal Costa C, Seguí Gómez M, Durá Ros MjAbstract:To explore differences in severity classifications according to 2 versions of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS): version 2005 (the 2008 update) and the earlier version 98. To determine whether possible differences might have an impact on identifying severe trauma patients. Descriptive study and cross-sectional analysis of a case series of patients admitted to two spanish hospitals with out-of-hospital injuries between February 2012 and February 2013. For each patient we calculated the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and the AIS scores according to versions 98 and 2005. The sample included 699 cases. The mean Severity (SD) age of patients was 52.7 (29.2) years, and 388 (55.5%) were males. Version 98 of the AIS correlated more strongly with both the ISS (2.6%) and the NISS (2.9%). The 2008 update of the AIS (version 2005) classified fewer trauma patients than version 98 at the severity levels indicated by the ISS and NISS.
-
grado de correlacion entre las versiones 98 y 2005 actualizacion 2008 de la Abbreviated Injury Scale ais en la categorizacion del paciente traumatologico grave
Emergencias, 2018Co-Authors: Rebeca Abajas Bustillo, Mark R. Zonfrillo, Cesar Leal Costa, Maria Del Carmen Ortego Mate, Maria Segui GomezAbstract:espanolObjetivos. Estudiar si existen diferencias en la asignacion de gravedad entre las versiones 98 y 2005 –actualizacion 2008– de la escala Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) y determinar si estas posibles diferencias podrian tener repercusion en la definicion de paciente traumatologico grave. Metodo. Estudio descriptivo de una serie de casos con analisis transversal que incluyo a pacientes ingresados por lesiones debidas a causas externas en dos hospitales espanoles, llevado a cabo entre febrero de 2012 y febrero de 2013. Se calculo el Injury Severity Score (ISS) y el New Injury Severity Score (NISS) de cada uno de los casos con ambas versiones de la escala AIS. Resultados. La muestra estuvo compuesta por 699 casos, con una edad media de 52,7 (DE 29,2) anos, de los cuales 388 (55,5%) fueron varones. Se obtuvo una mayor clasificacion de pacientes graves con la version AIS 98, tanto para el ISS (2,6%) como el NISS (2,9%). Conclusiones. La version AIS 2005 –actualizacion 2008– clasifica un menor numero de pacientes como graves en comparacion con la version AIS 98. EnglishObjectives. To explore differences in severity classifications according to 2 versions of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS): version 2005 (the 2008 update) and the earlier version 98. To determine whether possible differences might have an impact on identifying severe trauma patients. Methods. Descriptive study and cross-sectional analysis of a case series of patients admitted to two spanish hospitals with out-of-hospital injuries between February 2012 and February 2013. For each patient we calculated the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and the AIS scores according to versions 98 and 2005. Results. The sample included 699 cases. The mean Severity (SD) age of patients was 52.7 (29.2) years, and 388 (55.5%) were males. Version 98 of the AIS correlated more strongly with both the ISS (2.6%) and the NISS (2.9%). Conclusion. The 2008 update of the AIS (version 2005) classified fewer trauma patients than version 98 at the severity levels indicated by the ISS and NISS.
-
impacto de la version de la Abbreviated Injury Scale en la categorizacion del paciente grave en espana
Emergencias, 2017Co-Authors: Rebeca Abajas Bustillo, Mark R. Zonfrillo, Cesar Leal Costa, Maria Del Carmen Ortego Mate, Maria Segui GomezAbstract:Objetivos: Identificar si existen diferencias en la asignacion de gravedad con la escala Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) en sus versiones AIS 98 y AIS 2005 (08) y determinar si estas tienen repercusion en la definicion de paciente grave. Metodo: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de corte transversal mediante revision de 749 historias clinicas en el Hospital Universitario Marques de Valdecilla de Cantabria (HUMV) y el Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra (CHN). Se realizo codificacion manual de todas las lesiones en las versiones AIS 98 y AIS 2005 (08) por especialista en AIS certificada. Se calculo el Injury Severity Score (ISS) y el New Injury Severity Score (NISS). Resultados: Al analizar los valores del ISS y NISS, se observo un mayor numero de pacientes en la version AIS 05 (08) para los valores ISS 1-8, y un mayor numero de pacientes para los valores ISS 9-14, 16-24 y >24 en la version AIS 98. Conclusiones: La caracterizacion de gravedad para un mismo paciente es en general menor con la version AIS 2005 (08) vs AIS 98. Datos de diferentes versiones deben ser recodificados para asegurar la comparabilidad de los mismos. La disminucion de la gravedad de las lesiones con la version AIS 2005 (08), obliga a replantearse la definicion de paciente grave como aquel que tiene un ISS>15. Palabras clave: Escala Resumida de Traumatismos, Indices de Gravedad del Trauma, Puntaje de Gravedad del Traumatismo , Gravedad del Paciente, Codificacion Clinica.
-
New methodology for an expert-designed map from International Classification of Diseases (ICD) to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ severity Injury
Traffic Injury Prevention, 2015Co-Authors: Mark R. Zonfrillo, Janet P Price, Patrick J Gillich, Ashley A. Weaver, Joel D. StitzelAbstract:Objective: There has been a longstanding desire for a map to convert International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Injury codes to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes to reflect the severity of those diagnoses. The Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM) was tasked by European Union representatives to create a categorical map classifying diagnoses codes as serious Injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] 3+), minor/moderate Injury (AIS 1/2), or indeterminate. This study's objective was to map Injury-related ICD-9-CM (clinical modification) and ICD-10-CM codes to these severity categories.Methods: Approximately 19,000 ICD codes were mapped, including injuries from the following categories: amputations, blood vessel Injury, burns, crushing Injury, dislocations/sprains/strains, foreign body, fractures, internal organ, nerve/spinal cord Injury, intracranial, laceration, open wounds, and superficial Injury/contusion. Two parallel activities were completed to create the maps: (1) An in-per...
Rebeca Abajas Bustillo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
grado de correlacion entre las versiones 98 y 2005 actualizacion 2008 de la Abbreviated Injury Scale ais en la categorizacion del paciente traumatologico grave
Emergencias, 2018Co-Authors: Rebeca Abajas Bustillo, Mark R. Zonfrillo, Cesar Leal Costa, Maria Del Carmen Ortego Mate, Maria Segui GomezAbstract:espanolObjetivos. Estudiar si existen diferencias en la asignacion de gravedad entre las versiones 98 y 2005 –actualizacion 2008– de la escala Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) y determinar si estas posibles diferencias podrian tener repercusion en la definicion de paciente traumatologico grave. Metodo. Estudio descriptivo de una serie de casos con analisis transversal que incluyo a pacientes ingresados por lesiones debidas a causas externas en dos hospitales espanoles, llevado a cabo entre febrero de 2012 y febrero de 2013. Se calculo el Injury Severity Score (ISS) y el New Injury Severity Score (NISS) de cada uno de los casos con ambas versiones de la escala AIS. Resultados. La muestra estuvo compuesta por 699 casos, con una edad media de 52,7 (DE 29,2) anos, de los cuales 388 (55,5%) fueron varones. Se obtuvo una mayor clasificacion de pacientes graves con la version AIS 98, tanto para el ISS (2,6%) como el NISS (2,9%). Conclusiones. La version AIS 2005 –actualizacion 2008– clasifica un menor numero de pacientes como graves en comparacion con la version AIS 98. EnglishObjectives. To explore differences in severity classifications according to 2 versions of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS): version 2005 (the 2008 update) and the earlier version 98. To determine whether possible differences might have an impact on identifying severe trauma patients. Methods. Descriptive study and cross-sectional analysis of a case series of patients admitted to two spanish hospitals with out-of-hospital injuries between February 2012 and February 2013. For each patient we calculated the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and the AIS scores according to versions 98 and 2005. Results. The sample included 699 cases. The mean Severity (SD) age of patients was 52.7 (29.2) years, and 388 (55.5%) were males. Version 98 of the AIS correlated more strongly with both the ISS (2.6%) and the NISS (2.9%). Conclusion. The 2008 update of the AIS (version 2005) classified fewer trauma patients than version 98 at the severity levels indicated by the ISS and NISS.
-
impacto de la version de la Abbreviated Injury Scale en la categorizacion del paciente grave en espana
Emergencias, 2017Co-Authors: Rebeca Abajas Bustillo, Mark R. Zonfrillo, Cesar Leal Costa, Maria Del Carmen Ortego Mate, Maria Segui GomezAbstract:Objetivos: Identificar si existen diferencias en la asignacion de gravedad con la escala Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) en sus versiones AIS 98 y AIS 2005 (08) y determinar si estas tienen repercusion en la definicion de paciente grave. Metodo: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de corte transversal mediante revision de 749 historias clinicas en el Hospital Universitario Marques de Valdecilla de Cantabria (HUMV) y el Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra (CHN). Se realizo codificacion manual de todas las lesiones en las versiones AIS 98 y AIS 2005 (08) por especialista en AIS certificada. Se calculo el Injury Severity Score (ISS) y el New Injury Severity Score (NISS). Resultados: Al analizar los valores del ISS y NISS, se observo un mayor numero de pacientes en la version AIS 05 (08) para los valores ISS 1-8, y un mayor numero de pacientes para los valores ISS 9-14, 16-24 y >24 en la version AIS 98. Conclusiones: La caracterizacion de gravedad para un mismo paciente es en general menor con la version AIS 2005 (08) vs AIS 98. Datos de diferentes versiones deben ser recodificados para asegurar la comparabilidad de los mismos. La disminucion de la gravedad de las lesiones con la version AIS 2005 (08), obliga a replantearse la definicion de paciente grave como aquel que tiene un ISS>15. Palabras clave: Escala Resumida de Traumatismos, Indices de Gravedad del Trauma, Puntaje de Gravedad del Traumatismo , Gravedad del Paciente, Codificacion Clinica.
