Background: The Injury Severity Score and Trauma and Injury Severity Score are used commonly to quantify the severity of injury, but they require comprehensive data collection that is impractical in many low- and middle-income countries . We sought to develop an injury score that is more feasible to implement in low- and middle-income countries with discrimination similar to the Injury Severity Score and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score. Methods: Clinical data from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa were used to compare the discrimination of the Injury Severity Score and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score with that of the 5, simple injury scores that rely primarily on physiologic data: Revised Trauma Score for Triage, “Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, Pressure” Score, Kampala Trauma Score, modified Kampala Trauma Score, and “Reversed Shock Index Multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale” Score. Results: Data for 3,991 patients were analyzed. The Trauma and Injury Severity Score, the Injury Severity Score, and Kampala Trauma Score had similar discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve 0.85, 0.84, and 0.84, respectively). The simple injury scores demonstrated worse discrimination among patients presenting more than 6 hours postinjury, although Kampala Trauma Score maintained the best discrimination of the simple injury scores. Conclusion: In this patient population, Kampala Trauma Score demonstrated discrimination similar to the Injury Severity Score and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score and may be useful to quantify the severity of injury when calculation of the Injury Severity Score or the Trauma and Injury Severity Score is not feasible. Delay in presentation can degrade the discrimination of simple injury scores that rely primarily on physiologic data.
ASJC Scopus subject areas