
==== Front
BMC Emerg Med
BMC Emerg Med
BMC Emergency Medicine
1471-227X
BioMed Central London

1084
10.1186/s12873-024-01084-w
Research
Comparing NEWS2, TRISS, and RTS in predicting mortality rate in trauma patients based on prehospital data set: a diagnostic study
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9873-0946
Yousefi Mohammad Reza
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9297-3488
Karajizadeh Mehrdad mehrdad.karaji@gmail.com

http://orcid.org/0009-0005-8101-650X
Ghasemian Mehdi
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6980-2576
Paydar Shahram
https://ror.org/01n3s4692 grid.412571.4 0000 0000 8819 4698 Trauma Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
9 9 2024
9 9 2024
2024
24 16325 6 2024
2 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

In the recent years, National Early Warning Score2 (NEWS2) is utilized to predict early on, the worsening of clinical status in patients. To this date the predictive accuracy of National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) regarding the trauma patients’ mortality rate have not been compared. Therefore, the objective of this study is comparing NEWS2, TRISS, and RTS in predicting mortality rate in trauma patients based on prehospital data set.

Methods

This cross-sectional retrospective diagnostic study performed on 6905 trauma patients, of which 4191 were found eligible, referred to the largest trauma center in southern Iran, Shiraz, during 2022–2023 based on their prehospital data set in order to compare the prognostic power of NEWS2, RTS, and TRISS in predicting in-hospital mortality rate. Patients are divided into deceased and survived groups. Demographic data, vital signs, and GCS were obtained from the patients and scoring systems were calculated and compared between the two groups. TRISS and ISS are calculated with in-hospital data set; others are based on prehospital data set.

Results

A total of 129 patients have deceased. Age, cause of injury, length of hospital stay, SBP, RR, HR, temperature, SpO2, and GCS were associated with mortality (p-value < 0.001). TRISS and RTS had the highest sensitivity and specificity respectively (77.52, CI 95% [69.3–84.4] and 93.99, CI 95% [93.2–94.7]). TRISS had the highest area under the ROC curve (0.934) followed by NEWS2 (0.879), GCS (0.815), RTS (0.812), and ISS (0.774). TRISS and NEWS were superior to RTS, GCS, and ISS (p-value < 0.0001).

Conclusion

This novel study compares the accuracy of NEWS2, TRISS, and RTS scoring systems in predicting mortality rate based on prehospital data. The findings suggest that all the scoring systems can predict mortality, with TRISS being the most accurate of them, followed by NEWS2. Considering the time consumption and ease of use, NEWS2 seems to be accurate and quick in predicting mortality based on prehospital data set.

Keywords

Mortality rate
Prehospital vital signs
Trauma
Scoring system
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Trauma is one of the most important causes of mortality and morbidity, worldwide [1, 2]. It is projected that around 10% of the burden of disease in adults is because of traumatic injuries [3]. Trauma can result in severe consequences including disabilities in patients, psychosocial burdens, and mortality in the active workforce of the society [4–6]. Cardiopulmonary arrest, unplanned admission to intensive care units, and nosocomial infections are some of the complications of trauma patients who are admitted to trauma centers [7–9]. However, the mortality rate of hospitalized trauma patients is estimated to be 11% [10]. In-hospital mortality rate in trauma patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is 92.7 [8]. Mortality and morbidity resulting from trauma are related to intensity of the injury, diagnosis delay, and timing to reach a medical establishment [8]. Consequences of trauma can additionally affect the psychological status of the family and efficiency of the society [11]. Hence, prompt evaluation, proper post-trauma care, and proper triage can reduce the long-term mortality and morbidity among trauma patients, among which swift assessment of trauma severity is crucial for primary triage of multiple trauma patients [12].

Trauma scoring systems can be used to promptly assess the severity of the injury and the prognosis of patient’s condition. Using these scoring systems improve the overall organization of triaging trauma patients, optimization of resources, and immediate assessment of trauma complications [13, 14]. Several scoring systems have been introduced for this purpose. The most accurate trauma scoring system is the trauma and injury severity score (TRISS). However, the calculation of the score is complicated and time-consuming and it is usually utilized for research instead of clinical purposes [15–17]. Considering the downfalls of scoring systems, new ones are introduced, including Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Worthing Physiological Scoring System (WPSS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Circulation, Respiration, Abdomen, Motor, and Speech (CRAMS), Glasgow coma score, age, and systolic blood pressure, and mechanism of injury (MGAP) [18–21].

In recent years, NEWS2 has been utilized to promptly diagnose patients whose clinical status tends to take a turn for the worse [22]. In 2022, a cohort study indicated that NEWS2 can be associated with mortality rate of hospitalized patients in general wards [22]. Another study conducted in 2022 aimed at comparing the ability of the MEWS, WPSS, NEWS2, and REMS to predict in-hospital mortality in multiple trauma patients showed that REMS and MEWS have better accuracy than the other ones [19]. Studies have also shown that vital signs obtained in prehospital setting can predict patient’s clinical status and vital signs in-hospitals and emergency departments [23, 24].

In this study, the authors hypothesize that NEWS2 can effectively and precisely predict the chance of in-hospital mortality in the injured patients based on their prehospital data set. This will be helpful in providing a fast and precise method for predicting patients’ clinical course, consequently, offering better care for trauma patients and decreasing the overall burdensome mortality and morbidity rates among them. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether the NEWS2 obtained from prehospital data set can predict in-hospital mortality in trauma patients. We are inclined to compare the prognostic power of NEWS2, RTS, and in-hospital TRISS scoring systems.

Methods

This cross-sectional retrospective diagnostic study was designed according to standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) [25] in order to compare the prognostic power of NEWS2, RTS, and in hospital TRISS in predicting the in-hospital mortality rate of trauma patients referred to the largest trauma center in southern Iran, Shiraz, during 2022–2023 based on their prehospital data set.

In the first step, all trauma patients admitted to a tertiary referral trauma center in southwestern Iran from 2022 to 2023 who were hospitalized for at least 24 h were enrolled in the study using convenience sampling method. Afterwards, patients who activated emergency protocols by calling an ambulance and were brought to the hospital with emergency staff and who had recorded vital signs and other required prehospital data were included in the study, while patients who came to trauma center by themselves, who did not have a documented vital sign and other prehospital evaluations, who were under 18 years of age, who had incomplete or incorrectly documented prehospital data (missing data), who suffered from drowning, who were burn patients whose predominant injury was burn, and who were declared deceased before arriving at the hospital were excluded from the study. Overall, a total of 6905 patients initially had the potential to be enrolled in the study; after excluding ineligible patients, 4191 patients were enrolled in the study (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of participants through the study

A data sheet is used to gather information from patients which included demographic data (age and gender), mechanism of the injury, vital signs (systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature), blood oxygen saturation using pulse-oximeter, GCS, type of trauma (blunt or penetrating), injury severity score (ISS) in the emergency room, and outcome of the patient (deceased or survived). These data sheets are filled by the emergency staff who responded to the accident. NEWS2, RTS, ISS, and TRISS are then calculated and documented. Due to the retrospective nature of the study and complete concealment of the patients’ personal information, with the authorization of the ethic committee if the shiraz university of medical sciences (IR.SUMS.REC.1401.337), no consent forms were obtained from the patients prior to data collection. NEWS2 is calculated using the scoring chart shown in Fig. 2, and the score is then interpreted using the charts in Fig. 3 [26].

Fig. 2 National early warning score (NEWS2), royal college of physicians 2018

Fig. 3 NEWS thresholds and triggers, royal college of physicians 2017

RTS is calculated and interpreted using the values and formula indicated in Table 1. It includes values from 0 to 7.8408 with the latter having the highest survival probability. The interpretation of the RTS scoring system is presented in Table 2 [27, 28]. TRISS were also obtained from the data gathered in hospitalized setting. It is calculated using in-hospital ISS and RTS score with two different formulas for blunt and penetrating injuries (Table 3) [29]. It is notable that the RTS utilized in calculating TRISS is obtained from in-hospital data set of the patients.

Table 1 RTS values and formula

GCS	Value	SBP	Value	RR	Value	
13–15	4	> 89	4	10–29	4	
9–12	3	76–89	3	> 29	3	
6–8	2	50–75	2	6–9	2	
4–5	1	1–49	1	1–5	1	
3	0	0	0	0	0	
RTS = (0.9368 × GCS value) + (0.7326 × SBP value) + (0.2908 × RR value)

GCS Glasgow coma scale, SPB Systolic blood pressure, RR Respiratory rate, RTS Revised trauma score

Table 2 Interpretation of RTS

RTS	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	7.8408	
Survival probability, %	2.7	7.1	17.2	36.1	60.5	80.7	91.9	96.9	98.8	
RTS Revised trauma score

Table 3 TRISS calculation value and formula

Blunt	x = -1.1270 + [RTS × 0.9544] + [ISS × -0.0768] + [age point × -1.9052]	
Penetrating	x = -0.6029 + [RTS × 1.1430] + [ISS × -0.1516] + [age point × -0.6029]	
age points	≤ 55	0	
> 55	1	
Probability of survival = 1 ÷ (1 + e −x )	
RTS Revised trauma score, ISS Injury severity score, e Euler’s number

The means, and standard deviations are reported as crude numbers and percentages. The continuous variables normally distributed were compared using t-test. The chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables for bivariate analysis, while Kruskal-Wallis test will be utilized for comparing two or more independent variables. Binary logistic regression was used to control the confounding variable and evaluate the accuracy of the scales, sensitivity, specificity. In addition, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) will be reported. SPSS version 27.0 and MedCalc version 22.021 were used for statistical analysis. A two-sided p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

In total, 4191 patients were enrolled in the study, 129 (3.1%) of whom died in the first 72 h after arrival at the emergency room on average. The mean age of the patients was 41.06 ± 20.56 years with the majority of them being male (79.1%). There was a significant difference in age between survived and deceased patients, with deceased patients being older than those who survived (p-value < 0.001). Most patients suffered from traffic accidents included either vehicle or pedestrian accidents (61.4%). This was also the leading cause of injury in both survived and deceased groups (61.1% and 71.3%, respectively). The cause of injury was significantly different between the two groups with patients who had endured traffic accidents having worse outcomes (p-value = 0.002). Patients who have expired had longer hospital stay in comparison with the ones who survived. A statistically significant difference was observed in the duration of the hospital stay (p-value < 0.001) (Table 4).

Table 4 Demographic data of the study population and general properties of the trauma

Characteristicsa	Survived (N = 4062)	Deceased (N = 129)	Total (N = 4191)	p-value	
Age, years	< 0.001	
 < 45, N (%)	2643 (65.1)	51 (39.5)	2694 (64.3)		
 45–55, N (%)	444 (10.9)	15 (11.6)	459 (11)	
 56–65, N (%)	493 (9.7)	19 (14.7)	412 (9.8)	
 > 65, N (%)	582 (14.3)	44 (34.1)	626 (14.9)	
 Mean ± SD	40.66 ± 20.3	53.63 ± 24.41	41.06 ± 20.56	
Gender	0.265	
 Male, N (%)	3219 (79.2)	97 (75.2)	3316 (79.1)		
 Female, N (%)	843 (20.8)	32 (24.8)	875 (20.9)	
Cause of Injury	0.002	
 Traffic accidents, N (%)	2483 (61.1)	92 (71.3)	2575 (61.4)		
 Falling, N (%)	1036 (25.5)	33 (25.6)	1069 (25.5)	
 Human or animal assault, N (%)	1 (< 0.1)	1 (0.8)	2 (< 0.1)	
 Firearms, N (%)	28 (0.7)	1 (0.8)	29 (0.7)	
 Others, N (%)	514(12.7)	2 (1.6)	516 (12.3)	
 Length of hospital stayb, Days ± SD	2.51 ± 1.06	2.86 ± 1.44	5.66 ± 7.98	< 0.001	
SD Standard deviation

aThe percentage in the table is reported within the survival status of the patients.

bFrom arrival to the emergency room until either death or recovery (discharged from hospital).

SBP was significantly higher among survived patients than the deceased group (129.38 ± 18.25 vs. 112.81 ± 31.9, P < 0.001) (). Heart rate and respiratory rate were also higher among survived patients compared to deceased ones (87.69 ± 16.64 vs. 86.49 ± 28.72 and 16.59 ± 3 vs. 14.9 ± 5.05, respectively), both of which were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Expired patients had significantly lower O2 saturation (86.24 ± 18.2 vs. 94.27 ± 5.73, P < 0.001) and lower temperature than survived patients (36.46 ± 0.48 vs. 36.78 ± 0.38, P < 0.001). GCS of the deceased patients was significantly lower in their prehospital data with 27 (20.9%) having a GCS equal to 3, while 24 (0.6%) of the survived patients had a GCS equal to 3 and 3855 (94.9%) had a GCS above 13. Thereby, data analysis revealed that survived patients had a higher prehospital GCS than deceased ones (14.63 ± 1.63 vs. 9.19 ± 4.77, P < 0.001) (Table 5).

Table 5 Prehospital clinical characteristics of the patients

Characteristicsa﻿	Survived (N = 4062)	Deceased (N = 129)	Total (N = 4191)	p-value	
SBP, mean mmHg ± SD	129.38 ± 18.25	112.81 ± 31.9	128.87 ± 19.03	< 0.001	
HR, mean bpm ± SD	87.69 ± 16.64	86.49 ± 28.72	87.65 ± 17.13	< 0.001	
RR, mean bpm ± SD	16.59 ± 3	14.9 ± 5.05	16.53 ± 3.1	< 0.001	
SpO2, mean % ± SD	94.27 ± 5.73	86.24 ± 18.2	94.02 ± 6.62	< 0.001	
Temperature, mean °C ± SD	36.78 ± 0.38	36.46 ± 0.48	36.77 ± 0.39	< 0.001	
GCS, mean ± SD	14.63 ± 1.63	9.19 ± 4.77	14.46 ± 2.03	< 0.001	
3, N (%)	24 (0.6)	27 (20.9)	51 (1.2)		
4–5, N (%)	9 (0.2)	8 (6.2)	17 (0.4)		
6–8, N (%)	68 (1.7)	31 (24)	99 (2.4)		
9–12, N (%)	106 (2.6)	19 (14.7)	125 (3)		
13–15, N (%)	3855 (94.9)	44 (34.1)	3899 (93)		
SD Standard deviation, SBP Systolic blood pressure, HR Heart rate, RR Respiratory rate, GCS Glasgow comma scale, bpm bits/breaths per minute

a﻿The percentage in the table is reported within the survival status of the patients.

ISS and NEWS2 had significantly higher values among deceased patients in comparison to survived group (20.8 ± 14.67 vs. 8.13 ± 6.84, P < 0.001 and 8.6 ± 5.12 vs. 2.02 ± 2.37, P < 0.001, respectively). In accordance with that, RTS (6.07 ± 1.87 vs. 7.75 ± 0.44, P < 0.001) and TRISS (77.57 ± 26.93 vs. 98.65 ± 4.3, P < 0.001) had lower values in deceased group compared to the survived ones (Table 6).

Table 6 Descriptive data of ISS, RTS, NEWS2, and TRISS

Characteristicsa﻿	Survived (N = 4062)	Deceased (N = 129)	Total (N = 4191)	p-value	
ISS, mean ± SDb	8.13 ± 6.84	20.8 ± 14.67	8.52 ± 7.53	< 0.001	
RTS, mean ± SD	7.75 ± 0.44	6.07 ± 1.87	7.69 ± 0.62	< 0.001	
2.7% SP, N (%)	0 (0)	4 (3.1)	4 (0.1)		
7.1% SP, N (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)		
17.2% SP, N (%)	1 (< 0.1)	4 (3.1)	5 (0.1)		
36.1% SP, N (%)	4 (0.1)	3 (2.3)	7 (0.2)		
60.5% SP, N (%)	22 (0.5)	20 (15.5)	42 (1)		
80.7% SP, N (%)	74 (1.8)	35 (27.1)	109 (2.6)		
91.9% SP, N (%)	113 (2.8)	19 (14.7)	132 (3.1)		
96.9% SP, N (%)	30 (0.7)	1 (0.8)	31 (0.7)		
98.8% SP, N (%)	3818 (94)	43 (33.3)	3861 (92.1)		
NEWS2, mean ± SD	2.02 ± 2.37	8.6 ± 5.12	2.22 ± 2.74	< 0.001	
Low, N (%)	3508 (86.4)	32 (24.8)	3540 (84.5)		
Low to medium, N (%)	152 (3.7)	1 (0.8)	153 (3.7)		
Medium, N (%)	176 (4.3)	12 (9.3)	188 (4.5)		
High, N (%)	226 (5.6)	84 (65.1)	310 (7.4)		
TRISS, mean ± SDb	98.65 ± 4.3	77.57 ± 26.93	98 ± 7.3	< 0.001	
ISS Injury severity score, RTS Revised trauma score, NEWS2 National early warning score, TRISS Trauma and injury severity score, SP Survival probability

aThe percentage in the table is reported within the survival status of the patients.

bThese variables are calculated based on in-hospital data sets

The areas under the ROCs of ISS, GCS, RTS, NEWS2, and TRISS were 0.774, 0.815, 0.812, 0.879, and 0.934, respectively. The associations of all the scoring systems with the prediction of in-hospital mortality were statistically significant (p-value < 0.0001). TRISS had the highest sensitivity and RTS had the highest specificity in predicting in-hospital mortality based on prehospital data set. The sensitivities of the ISS, GCS, RTS, NEWS2, and TRISS were 65.12, 67.44, 66.67, 74.42, and 77.52, respectively. The specificities of the mentioned scoring systems were 81.83, 93.45, 93.99, 90.1, and 92.83, respectively. Other receiver operator characteristics of the scoring systems are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7 Receiver operator characteristics of ISS, GCS, RTS, NEWS2, and TRISS in predicting in-hospital mortality rate

Indicator	ISSa	GCS	RTS	NEWS2	TRISS*	
cutoff	> 12	≤ 14	≤ 7	> 4	≤ 97.01	
Sensitivity  (95% CI)	65.12 (56.2–73.3)	67.44 (58.6–75.4)	66.67 (57.8–74.7)	74.42 (66-81.7)	77.52 (69.3–84.4)	
Specificity  (95% CI)	81.83 (80.6–83)	93.45 (92.6–94.2)	93.99 (93.2–94.7)	90.1 (89.1–91)	92.83 (92-93.6)	
PLR (95% CI)	3.58 (3.11–4.13)	10.3 (8.72–12.17)	11.1 (9.34–13.19)	7.52 (6.56–8.63)	10.81 (9.36–12.5)	
NLR (95% CI)	0.43 (0.34–0.54)	0.35 (0.27–0.45)	0.35 (0.28–0.45)	0.28 (0.21–0.38)	0.24 (0.18–0.33)	
AUC (95% CI)	0.774	0.815	0.812	0.879	0.934	
p-value	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	
ISS Injury severity score, RTS Revised trauma score, NEWS2 National early warning score, TRISS Trauma and injury severity score, PLR Positive likelihood ratio, NLR Negative likelihood ratio, AUC Area under the curve, CI Confidence interval

aThese variables are calculated based on in-hospital data sets

Furthermore, comparison of the ROCs of the scoring systems revealed that TRISS is significantly superior to the others in predicting in-hospital mortality rate based on prehospital data set, followed by NEWS2, GCS, RTS, and ISS (Fig. 4). Both NEWS2 and TRISS were found to be significantly superior to GCS, RTS, and ISS (p-value < 0.05). TRISS was superior to NEWS 2 in its prognostic accuracy (p-value = 0.0026). Nonetheless, GCS, ISS, and RTS had insignificant differences in predicting in-hospital mortality based on prehospital data set (p-value > 0.05) (Table 8).

Fig. 4 Receiver operator curves of in-hospital ISS, prehospital GCS, prehospital RTS, prehospital NEWS2, and in-hospital TRISS

Table 8 Pairwise comparison of the ROS properties of the scoring systems

Scoring system	AUC of ROCs	p-value	95% CI	
NEWS2 ~ TRISSa	0.879 ~ 0.934	0.0026	0.0190 to 0.0901	
NEWS2 ~ RTS	0.879 ~ 0.812	< 0.0001	0.0353 to 0.0985	
NEWS2 ~ GCS	0.879 ~ 0.815	0.0001	0.0326 to 0.0949	
NEWS2 ~ ISSa	0.879 ~ 0.774	0.0007	0.114 to 0.206	
TRISS* ~ RTS	0.934 ~ 0.812	< 0.0001	0.0825 to 0.160	
TRISS* ~ GCS	0.934 ~ 0.815	< 0.0001	0.0796 to 0.157	
TRISS* ~ ISSa	0.934 ~ 0.774	< 0.0001	0.0908 to 0.173	
RTS ~ GCS	0.812 ~ 0.815	0.6246	-0.00942 to 0.0157	
RTS ~ ISSa	0.812 ~ 0.774	0.2223	-0.0235 to 0.101	
GCS ~ ISS	0.815 ~ 0.774	0.1847	-0.0200 to 0.104	
ISS Injury severity score, RTS Revised trauma score, NEWS2 National early warning score, TRISS Trauma and injury severity score, PLR Positive likelihood ratio, NLR Negative likelihood ratio, AUC Area under the curve, ROC Receiver operator curves, CI Confidence interval

aThese variables are calculated based on in-hospital data sets

	

Discussion

In recent years, several scoring systems have been introduced for predicting the outcome of trauma patients based on their vital signs, mental status, site and severity of the injury, and other risk factors. The accuracy and swiftness of these tests in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients are major issues. In this study, we attempted to compare the prognostic power of TRISS, NEWS2, and RTS scoring systems in predicting mortality in trauma patients based on their prehospital data set. As indicated in previous studies, prehospital vital signs are closely correlated with initial in-hospital vital signs [23]. Therefore, in this novel study, we hypothesized that trauma scoring systems could predict in-hospital mortality based on prehospital data set. Thus, prompt arrangements can be utilized based on mortality risk and increased the overall outcome of the patients. Among the scoring systems, we selected TRISS, NEWS2, and RTS because of their accurate prognostic power and/or ease of use. Subsequently, we compared them with each other and more basic scoring systems such as ISS and GCS. Our results showed that all these scoring systems could effectively predict mortality rate of patients. TRISS and RTS have the highest sensitivity and specificity, respectively. TRISS had the highest area under the ROC curve followed by NEWS2, RTS, GCS, and ISS.

Age of the patients was associated with their mortality rate. The older the patients, the lower their survival rate. This is in alignment with a previous study in which, age was significantly corelated with mortality rate and deceased patients had higher median age [30]. As a conclusion, older patients require more precise and prompter evaluation and closer observation after trauma. Gender, on the other hand, remains a controversial issue in its correlation with survivability chances after trauma. Some studies indicated that females have higher chances of survival [31] and others showed no correlation between gender and mortality rate [32]. In our study gender did not show any significant difference among deceased and survived patients. To the best of the authors knowledge, no physiological explanation was given for the survival benefit of one gender compared the other. Road traffic accidents victims had significantly higher mortality rate compared to other causes of injuries. Road traffic injuries remain a major threat to public health and inflict many mortalities and morbidities annually. Studies suggest that this type of injury has tripled in our region (Iran) in a 23-years period. Length of hospital stay was associated with increased in-hospital mortality rate in our study, which is supported by previous studies [33, 34].

Deceased patients had overall worse prehospital vital signs status compared to survived ones. Systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, GCS and SpO2 was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality in this research. Multiple studies have indicated that these easily obtained measurements can in fact predict in-hospital mortality [35–37]. As mentioned, prehospital vital signs are associated with emergency room vital sign measurements [23] and can be used as a rapid and reliable predictor of mortality in the patients.

All the scoring systems can predict mortality rates among trauma patients. TRISS have the highest sensitivity and area under the ROC curve among all the evaluated scoring systems. However, it is noteworthy that TRISS is only calculable with in-hospital data set. This finding is in line with previous studies, in which TRISS was the most successful predicator of mortality in trauma patients compared to other scoring systems [38, 39]. Nevertheless, calculating TRISS score is found to be an intensive task that includes calculating two other scoring systems beforehand [40, 41]. Hence, undermining the point of this study to provide a swift evaluation tool for predicting trauma patients’ outcomes. RTS had lower sensitivity and AUC of ROC in our study compared to previous ones [38, 42]. NEWS2 had higher sensitivity and specificity in comparison to a previous study [43]. These differences can be due to data gathering setting (prehospital vs. in-hospital), demographic and regional varieties, and study populations.

The comparison of scoring systems revealed that NEWS2 is the second most accurate scoring system. It is debatable that the benefits of the NEWS2 system exceeds the ones of TRISS, in that the former takes approximately 3 min and 35 s for medical staff to calculate [44] and contains only the common vital signs and primary evaluations, whereas the later includes calculating two other scoring systems. NEWS2 had also a decent sensitivity (only second to TRISS) and specificity (higher than TRISS) in predicting in-hospital mortality among trauma patients based on their prehospital data set. In our study, the cutoff point of the NEWS2 was more than 4, which corelates to medium and high thresholds introduced by the royal college of physicians [26]. This point is the recommended “key threshold for urgent response”, which is in line with our findings. Other scoring systems (ISS, RTS, GCS) did not show any significant difference in accuracy of predicting mortality compared to each other, although all of them are capable of that purpose.

In recent years, regarding the advancements in monitoring technologies, wearable devices are utilized for constant monitoring of patients [45, 46]. Using devices which can evaluate and report NEWS2 in prehospital setting might effectively increase the patients’ survivability. Nonetheless, the feasibility and clinical validation of these devices for this purpose is yet to be evaluated.

Strengths and limitations

Our study is a novel one in that it compares the accuracy of several sophisticated scoring systems in predicting mortality based on the prehospital data set of a proper study population. The data is collected in the largest trauma center in southern Iran and professional staff had documented these data in a systematic manner. Reporting the time consumed to calculate each scoring systems, which our study lacked, could greatly aid the endeavor of finding an accurate and swift trauma scoring system. The retrospective nature of the study had also caused a number of cases to be excluded due to their missing data. Moreover, other available scoring systems are to be evaluated and compared in order to sum up an accurate conclusion.

Conclusion

This pioneer study investigates and compares the accuracy of NEWS2, TRISS, and RTS scoring systems in predicting mortality rate based on prehospital data set in the largest trauma center in southern Iran. The results suggest that all the scoring systems are well capable of predicting mortality, with TRISS being the most accurate of them, followed by NEWS2. TRISS and NEWS2 showed no significant difference in accuracy. Considering the time consumption and ease of use, NEWS2 seems to be an accurate and swift scoring system in predicting mortality based on prehospital data set. Further meta-analysis and population-based studies are required to choose a superior scoring system and reduce the mortality rate of the trauma patients.

Acknowledgements

The authors deeply appreciate the sincere guidance of the chair of the trauma research center, the nursing staff, the emergency staff, and Shiraz trauma registry.

Authors' contributions

SP designed the original intellectual content of the study. MRY, MK, and SP have designed the concepts of the study. MRY and MK did the literature search. MRY and MK did data analysis, statistical analysis. MRY, MK, and SP prepared, reviewed, and edited the manuscript. MK is the corresponding author of the study.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

data available request for corresponding authors.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Shiraz University of Medical Science (Approval ID: IR.SUMS.REC.1401.337). Due to the retrospective nature of the study, the ethics committee of Shiraz university of medical sciences have waived the necessity of informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. James SL Castle CD Dingels ZV Fox JT Hamilton EB Liu Z Global injury morbidity and mortality from 1990 to 2017: results from the global burden of disease study 2017 Inj Prev 2020 26 Supp 1 i96 114 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043494 32332142
James SL, Castle CD, Dingels ZV, Fox JT, Hamilton EB, Liu Z, et al. Global injury morbidity and mortality from 1990 to 2017: results from the global burden of disease study 2017. Inj Prev. 2020;26(Supp 1):i96–114.32332142 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043494
2. Naghavi M, Ong KL, Aali A, Ababneh HS, Abate YH, Abbafati C, et al. Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2024;403(10440):2100–32.
3. Haagsma JA Graetz N Bolliger I Naghavi M Higashi H Mullany EC The global burden of injury: incidence, mortality, disability-adjusted life years and time trends from the global burden of disease study 2013 Inj Prev 2016 22 1 3 18 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041616 26635210
Haagsma JA, Graetz N, Bolliger I, Naghavi M, Higashi H, Mullany EC, et al. The global burden of injury: incidence, mortality, disability-adjusted life years and time trends from the global burden of disease study 2013. Inj Prev. 2016;22(1):3–18.26635210 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041616
4. Ramos-Pascua LR Complications and trauma sequelae Injury 2018 49 Suppl 2 S1 2 10.1016/j.injury.2018.06.045 30097308
Ramos-Pascua LR. Complications and trauma sequelae. Injury. 2018;49(Suppl 2):S1–2.30097308 10.1016/j.injury.2018.06.045
5. Mondello S Cantrell A Italiano D Fodale V Mondello P Ang D Complications of trauma patients admitted to the ICU in level I academic trauma centers in the United States Biomed Res Int 2014 2014 473419 10.1155/2014/473419 24995300
Mondello S, Cantrell A, Italiano D, Fodale V, Mondello P, Ang D. Complications of trauma patients admitted to the ICU in level I academic trauma centers in the United States. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:473419.24995300 10.1155/2014/473419
6. Braunschneider GE Complications of rauma JAMA 1994 272 20 1626 1627 10.1001/jama.1994.03520200084046
Braunschneider GE. Complications of rauma. JAMA. 1994;272(20):1626–7.10.1001/jama.1994.03520200084046
7. Mulvey HE Haslam RD Laytin AD Diamond CA Sims CA Unplanned ICU admission is associated with worse clinical outcomes in geriatric trauma patients J Surg Res 2020 245 13 21 10.1016/j.jss.2019.06.059 31394403
Mulvey HE, Haslam RD, Laytin AD, Diamond CA, Sims CA. Unplanned ICU admission is associated with worse clinical outcomes in geriatric trauma patients. J Surg Res. 2020;245:13–21.31394403 10.1016/j.jss.2019.06.059
8. Konesky KL Guo WA Revisiting traumatic cardiac arrest: should CPR be initiated? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2018 44 6 903 908 10.1007/s00068-017-0875-6 29177620
Konesky KL, Guo WA. Revisiting traumatic cardiac arrest: should CPR be initiated? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018;44(6):903–8.29177620 10.1007/s00068-017-0875-6
9. Karajizadeh M Nasiri M Yadollahi M Zolfaghari AH Pakdam A Mortality prediction from hospital-acquired infections in trauma patients using an unbalanced dataset Healthc Inf Res 2020 26 4 284 294 10.4258/hir.2020.26.4.284
Karajizadeh M, Nasiri M, Yadollahi M, Zolfaghari AH, Pakdam A. Mortality prediction from hospital-acquired infections in trauma patients using an unbalanced dataset. Healthc Inf Res. 2020;26(4):284–94.10.4258/hir.2020.26.4.284
10. Mahnaz Y, Zahra G, Kazem J, Mohammad Hadi N, Forough P, Mehrdad K. The accuracy of GAP and MGAP scoring systems in predicting mortality in trauma; a diagnostic accuracy study. Front Emerg Med. 2019;4(3):e73.
11. Kolk BAV. Psychological trauma. American Psychiatric Pub; 2003.
12. Imhoff BF Thompson NJ Hastings MA Nazir N Moncure M Cannon CM Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) in the trauma population: a retrospective study BMJ Open 2014 4 5 e004738 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004738 24793256
Imhoff BF, Thompson NJ, Hastings MA, Nazir N, Moncure M, Cannon CM. Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) in the trauma population: a retrospective study. BMJ Open. 2014;4(5): e004738.24793256 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004738
13. Wisner DH History and current status of trauma scoring systems Arch Surg 1992 127 1 111 117 10.1001/archsurg.1992.01420010133022 1734842
Wisner DH. History and current status of trauma scoring systems. Arch Surg. 1992;127(1):111–7.1734842 10.1001/archsurg.1992.01420010133022
14. Esme H Solak O Yurumez Y Yavuz Y Terzi Y Sezer M The prognostic importance of trauma scoring systems for blunt thoracic trauma Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007 55 3 190 195 10.1055/s-2006-955883 17410508
Esme H, Solak O, Yurumez Y, Yavuz Y, Terzi Y, Sezer M, et al. The prognostic importance of trauma scoring systems for blunt thoracic trauma. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;55(3):190–5.17410508 10.1055/s-2006-955883
15. Sanz J Paternain D Galar M Fernandez J Reyero D Belzunegui T A new survival status prediction system for severe trauma patients based on a multiple classifier system Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2017 142 1 8 10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.02.011 28325437
Sanz J, Paternain D, Galar M, Fernandez J, Reyero D, Belzunegui T. A new survival status prediction system for severe trauma patients based on a multiple classifier system. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2017;142:1–8.28325437 10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.02.011
16. Mukonkole SN Hunter L Möller A McCaul M Lahri S Van Hoving DJ A comparison of trauma scoring systems for injuries presenting to a district-level urban public hospital in western cape S Afr J Surg 2020 58 1 37 42 10.17159/2078-5151/2020/v58n1a3116 32243114
Mukonkole SN, Hunter L, Möller A, McCaul M, Lahri S, Van Hoving DJ. A comparison of trauma scoring systems for injuries presenting to a district-level urban public hospital in western cape. S Afr J Surg. 2020;58(1):37–42.32243114 10.17159/2078-5151/2020/v58n1a3116
17. Javali RH, Patil A, Srinivasarangan M, Suraj, Sriharsha. Comparison of Injury Severity Score, New Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score and Trauma and Injury Severity Score for Mortality Prediction in Elderly Trauma Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2019;23(2):73 − 7.
18. Jiang X Jiang P Mao Y Performance of modified early warning score (MEWS) and Circulation, espiration, Abdomen, Motor, and Speech (CRAMS) score in trauma severity and in-hospital mortality prediction in multiple trauma patients: a comparison study PeerJ 2019 7 e7227 10.7717/peerj.7227 31275766
Jiang X, Jiang P, Mao Y. Performance of modified early warning score (MEWS) and Circulation, espiration, Abdomen, Motor, and Speech (CRAMS) score in trauma severity and in-hospital mortality prediction in multiple trauma patients: a comparison study. PeerJ. 2019;7: e7227.31275766 10.7717/peerj.7227
19. Heydari F Majidinejad S Ahmadi A Nasr-Esfahani M Shayannejad H Al-Sadat Fatemi N A comparison between modified early warning score, WorthingPhysiological scoring system, national early warning score,and rapid emergency medicine score in predicting inhospital mortality in multiple trauma patients Archives Trauma Res 2021 10 4 188 94 10.4103/atr.atr_31_21
Heydari F, Majidinejad S, Ahmadi A, Nasr-Esfahani M, Shayannejad H, Al-Sadat Fatemi N. A comparison between modified early warning score, WorthingPhysiological scoring system, national early warning score,and rapid emergency medicine score in predicting inhospital mortality in multiple trauma patients. Archives Trauma Res. 2021;10(4):188–94.10.4103/atr.atr_31_21
20. Farzan N Foroghi Ghomi SY Mohammadi AR A retrospective study on evaluating GAP, MGAP, RTS and ISS trauma scoring system for the prediction of mortality among multiple trauma patients Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2022 76 103536 35495411
Farzan N, Foroghi Ghomi SY, Mohammadi AR. A retrospective study on evaluating GAP, MGAP, RTS and ISS trauma scoring system for the prediction of mortality among multiple trauma patients. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;76:103536.35495411
21. Dehghani Tafti ANK, Hajimaghsoudi M, Maki M, Mirzaei S, Eftekhari A. The most common tools to measure trauma severity: a review study. J Disaster Emerg Res. 2020;2(2).
22. Loisa E Kallonen A Hoppu S Tirkkonen J Trends in the national early warning score are associated with subsequent mortality - prospective three-centre observational study with 11,331 general ward patients Resusc Plus 2022 10 100251 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100251 35620180
Loisa E, Kallonen A, Hoppu S, Tirkkonen J. Trends in the national early warning score are associated with subsequent mortality - A prospective three-centre observational study with 11,331 general ward patients. Resusc Plus. 2022;10:100251.35620180 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100251
23. Trust MD Schellenberg M Biswas S Inaba K Cheng V Warriner Z Prehospital vital signs accurately predict initial emergency department vital signs Prehosp Disaster Med 2020 35 3 254 259 10.1017/S1049023X2000028X 32127060
Trust MD, Schellenberg M, Biswas S, Inaba K, Cheng V, Warriner Z, et al. Prehospital vital signs accurately predict initial emergency department vital signs. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020;35(3):254–9.32127060 10.1017/S1049023X2000028X
24. Peng C, Peng L, Yang F, Yu H, Chen Q, Guo Y, et al. The prediction of the survival in patients with severe trauma during prehospital care: analyses based on NTDB database. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024:1–11.
25. Bossuyt PM Reitsma JB Bruns DE Gatsonis CA Glasziou PP Irwig L STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies BMJ 2015 351 h5527 10.1136/bmj.h5527 26511519
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527.26511519 10.1136/bmj.h5527
26. Jones MNEWSDIG The national early warning score development and implementation group Clin Med (Lond) 2012 12 6 501 503 10.7861/clinmedicine.12-6-501 23342400
Jones MNEWSDIG. The national early warning score development and implementation group. Clin Med (Lond). 2012;12(6):501–3.23342400 10.7861/clinmedicine.12-6-501
27. Champion HR Sacco WJ Copes WS Gann DS Gennarelli TA Flanagan ME A revision of the trauma score J Trauma 1989 29 5 623 629 10.1097/00005373-198905000-00017 2657085
Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flanagan ME. A revision of the trauma score. J Trauma. 1989;29(5):623–9.2657085 10.1097/00005373-198905000-00017
28. Champion HR Sacco WJ Carnazzo AJ Copes W Fouty WJ Trauma score Crit Care Med 1981 9 9 672 676 10.1097/00003246-198109000-00015 7273818
Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Carnazzo AJ, Copes W, Fouty WJ. Trauma score. Crit Care Med. 1981;9(9):672–6.7273818 10.1097/00003246-198109000-00015
29. Boyd CR Tolson MA Copes WS Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma score and the injury severity score J Trauma 1987 27 4 370 378 10.1097/00005373-198704000-00005 3106646
Boyd CR, Tolson MA, Copes WS. Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma score and the injury severity score. J Trauma. 1987;27(4):370–8.3106646 10.1097/00005373-198704000-00005
30. Wongweerakit O Akaraborworn O Sangthong B Thongkhao K Age as the impact on mortality rate in trauma patients Crit Care Res Pract 2022 2022 2860888 36337072
Wongweerakit O, Akaraborworn O, Sangthong B, Thongkhao K. Age as the impact on mortality rate in trauma patients. Crit Care Res Pract. 2022;2022:2860888.36337072
31. Larsen R Bäckström D Fredrikson M Steinvall I Gedeborg R Sjoberg F Female risk-adjusted survival advantage after injuries caused by falls, traffic or assault: a nationwide 11-year study Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2019 27 1 24 10.1186/s13049-019-0597-3 30871611
Larsen R, Bäckström D, Fredrikson M, Steinvall I, Gedeborg R, Sjoberg F. Female risk-adjusted survival advantage after injuries caused by falls, traffic or assault: a nationwide 11-year study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019;27(1):24.30871611 10.1186/s13049-019-0597-3
32. Lee RS Lin WC Harnod D Shih HC Jeng MJ Role of gender in the survival outcome of acute phase of major trauma: a nationwide, population-based study J Chin Med Assoc 2020 83 12 1093 1101 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000399 32732531
Lee RS, Lin WC, Harnod D, Shih HC, Jeng MJ. Role of gender in the survival outcome of acute phase of major trauma: a nationwide, population-based study. J Chin Med Assoc. 2020;83(12):1093–101.32732531 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000399
33. Sadeghian F Mehri A Ghodsi Z Baigi V Bardsiri MS Sharif-Alhoseini M Road traffic injuries and associated mortality in the Islamic Republic of Iran East Mediterr Health J 2023 29 10 796 803 10.26719/emhj.23.104 37947230
Sadeghian F, Mehri A, Ghodsi Z, Baigi V, Bardsiri MS, Sharif-Alhoseini M, et al. Road traffic injuries and associated mortality in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 2023;29(10):796–803.37947230 10.26719/emhj.23.104
34. Mowery NT Dougherty SD Hildreth AN Holmes JHt, Chang MC Martin RS Emergency department length of stay is an independent predictor of hospital mortality in trauma activation patients J Trauma 2011 70 6 1317 25 21817968
Mowery NT, Dougherty SD, Hildreth AN, Holmes JHt, Chang MC, Martin RS, et al. Emergency department length of stay is an independent predictor of hospital mortality in trauma activation patients. J Trauma. 2011;70(6):1317–25.21817968
35. Sarang B Bhandarkar P Raykar N O’Reilly GM Soni KD Wärnberg MG Associations of On-arrival vital signs with 24-hour In-hospital mortality in adult trauma patients admitted to Four Public University Hospitals in Urban India: a prospective multi-centre cohort study Injury 2021 52 5 1158 1163 10.1016/j.injury.2021.02.075 33685640
Sarang B, Bhandarkar P, Raykar N, O’Reilly GM, Soni KD, Wärnberg MG, et al. Associations of On-arrival vital signs with 24-hour In-hospital mortality in adult trauma patients admitted to Four Public University Hospitals in Urban India: a prospective multi-centre cohort study. Injury. 2021;52(5):1158–63.33685640 10.1016/j.injury.2021.02.075
36. Ljunggren M Castrén M Nordberg M Kurland L The association between vital signs and mortality in a retrospective cohort study of an unselected emergency department population Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2016 24 21 10.1186/s13049-016-0213-8 26940235
Ljunggren M, Castrén M, Nordberg M, Kurland L. The association between vital signs and mortality in a retrospective cohort study of an unselected emergency department population. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24:21.26940235 10.1186/s13049-016-0213-8
37. Bruijns SR Guly HR Bouamra O Lecky F Lee WA The value of traditional vital signs, shock index, and age-based markers in predicting trauma mortality J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013 74 6 1432 1437 10.1097/TA.0b013e31829246c7 23694869
Bruijns SR, Guly HR, Bouamra O, Lecky F, Lee WA. The value of traditional vital signs, shock index, and age-based markers in predicting trauma mortality. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74(6):1432–7.23694869 10.1097/TA.0b013e31829246c7
38. Yadollahi M Kashkooe A Rezaiee R Jamali K Niakan MH A comparative study of injury severity scales as predictors of mortality in trauma patients: which scale is the best? Bull Emerg Trauma 2020 8 1 27 33 10.29252/beat-080105 32201699
Yadollahi M, Kashkooe A, Rezaiee R, Jamali K, Niakan MH. A comparative study of injury severity scales as predictors of mortality in trauma patients: which scale is the best? Bull Emerg Trauma. 2020;8(1):27–33.32201699 10.29252/beat-080105
39. Höke MH Usul E Özkan S Comparison of trauma severity scores (ISS, NISS, RTS, BIG score, and TRISS) in multiple trauma patients J Trauma Nurs 2021 28 2 100 106 10.1097/JTN.0000000000000567 33667204
Höke MH, Usul E, Özkan S. Comparison of trauma severity scores (ISS, NISS, RTS, BIG score, and TRISS) in multiple trauma patients. J Trauma Nurs. 2021;28(2):100–6.33667204 10.1097/JTN.0000000000000567
40. Demetriades D Kuncir E Velmahos GC Rhee P Alo K Chan LS Outcome and prognostic factors in head injuries with an admission glasgow coma scale score of 3 Arch Surg 2004 139 10 1066 1068 10.1001/archsurg.139.10.1066 15492144
Demetriades D, Kuncir E, Velmahos GC, Rhee P, Alo K, Chan LS. Outcome and prognostic factors in head injuries with an admission glasgow coma scale score of 3. Arch Surg. 2004;139(10):1066–8.15492144 10.1001/archsurg.139.10.1066
41. Cayten CG Stahl WM Murphy JG Agarwal N Byrne DW Limitations of the TRISS method for interhospital comparisons: a multihospital study J Trauma 1991 31 4 471 481 10.1097/00005373-199104000-00005 2020032
Cayten CG, Stahl WM, Murphy JG, Agarwal N, Byrne DW. Limitations of the TRISS method for interhospital comparisons: a multihospital study. J Trauma. 1991;31(4):471–81 discussion 81 – 2.2020032 10.1097/00005373-199104000-00005
42. Manoochehry S Vafabin M Bitaraf S Amiri A A comparison between the ability of revised trauma score and kampala trauma score in predicting mortality; a meta-analysis Arch Acad Emerg Med 2019 7 1 e6 30847441
Manoochehry S, Vafabin M, Bitaraf S, Amiri A. A comparison between the ability of revised trauma score and kampala trauma score in predicting mortality; a meta-analysis. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019;7(1):e6.30847441
43. Wei S Xiong D Wang J Liang X Wang J Chen Y The accuracy of the national early warning score 2 in predicting early death in prehospital and emergency department settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ann Transl Med 2023 11 2 95 10.21037/atm-22-6587 36819553
Wei S, Xiong D, Wang J, Liang X, Wang J, Chen Y. The accuracy of the national early warning score 2 in predicting early death in prehospital and emergency department settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med. 2023;11(2):95.36819553 10.21037/atm-22-6587
44. Wong D Bonnici T Knight J Gerry S Turton J Watkinson P A ward-based time study of paper and electronic documentation for recording vital sign observations J Am Med Inf Assoc 2017 24 4 717 721 10.1093/jamia/ocw186
Wong D, Bonnici T, Knight J, Gerry S, Turton J, Watkinson P. A ward-based time study of paper and electronic documentation for recording vital sign observations. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2017;24(4):717–21.10.1093/jamia/ocw186
45. Leenen JPL Rasing HJM Kalkman CJ Schoonhoven L Patijn GA Process evaluation of a wireless wearable continuous vital signs monitoring intervention in 2 general hospital wards: mixed methods study JMIR Nurs 2023 6 e44061 10.2196/44061 37140977
Leenen JPL, Rasing HJM, Kalkman CJ, Schoonhoven L, Patijn GA. Process evaluation of a wireless wearable continuous vital signs monitoring intervention in 2 general hospital wards: mixed methods study. JMIR Nurs. 2023;6:e44061.37140977 10.2196/44061
46. Chen J Jiang W Song Y Wearable electronic devices in the intensive care units Clin eHealth 2024 7 36 40 10.1016/j.ceh.2024.02.001
Chen J, Jiang W, Song Y. Wearable electronic devices in the intensive care units. Clin eHealth. 2024;7:36–40.10.1016/j.ceh.2024.02.001
