Abbreviated Injury Scale - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Abbreviated Injury Scale

The Experts below are selected from a list of 297 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Cameron S Palmer – 1st expert 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, 2019
    Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Hideo Tohira

    Abstract:

    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, 2019
    Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Hideo Tohira

    Abstract:

    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, 2016
    Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Peter Cameron, Belinda J Gabbe

    Abstract:

    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.

Maria Segui Gomez – 2nd expert 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, 2018
    Co-Authors: Rebeca Abajas Bustillo, Mark R. Zonfrillo, Cesar Leal Costa, Maria Del Carmen Ortego Mate, Maria Segui Gomez

    Abstract:

    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, 2017
    Co-Authors: Rebeca Abajas Bustillo, Mark R. Zonfrillo, Cesar Leal Costa, Maria Del Carmen Ortego Mate, Maria Segui Gomez

    Abstract:

    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 – 3rd expert 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, 2019
    Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Hideo Tohira

    Abstract:

    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, 2019
    Co-Authors: Cameron S Palmer, Hideo Tohira

    Abstract:

    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, 2013
    Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, Ian Jacobs, David Mountain, Nicholas P Gibson

    Abstract:

    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.