To determine whether the injury mortality prediction (IMP) statistically outperforms the trauma mortality prediction model (TMPM) as a predictor of mortality.
The TMPM is currently the best trauma score method, which is based on the anatomic injury. Its ability of mortality prediction is superior to the injury severity score (ISS) and to the new injury severity score (NISS). However, despite its statistical significance, the predictive power of TMPM needs to be further improved.
Retrospective cohort study is based on the data of 1,148,359 injured patients in the National Trauma Data Bank hospitalized from 2010 to 2011. Sixty percent of the data was used to derive an empiric measure of severity of different Abbreviated Injury Scale predot codes by taking the weighted average death probabilities of trauma patients. Twenty percent of the data was used to create computing method of the IMP model. The remaining 20% of the data was used to evaluate the statistical performance of IMP and then be compared with the TMPM and the single worst injury by examining area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), the Hosmer–Lemeshow (HL) statistic, and the Akaike information criterion.
IMP exhibits significantly both better discrimination (ROC-IMP, 0.903 [0.899–0.907] and ROC-TMPM, 0.890 [0.886–0.895]) and calibration (HL-IMP, 9.9 [4.4–14.7] and HL-TMPM, 197 [143–248]) compared with TMPM. All models show slight changes after the extension of age, gender, and mechanism of injury, but the extended IMP still dominated TMPM in every performance.
The IMP has slight improvement in discrimination and calibration compared with the TMPM and can accurately predict mortality. Therefore, we consider it as a new feasible scoring method in trauma research.