Comparison of Pediatric Trauma Scoring Tools That Incorporate Neurological Status for Trauma Team Activation.

BACKGROUND

Two novel pediatric trauma scoring tools, SIPAB+ (defined as elevated SIPA with Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8) and rSIG (reverse Shock Index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale and defined as abnormal using cutoffs for early outcomes), which combine neurological status with Pediatric Age-Adjusted Shock Index (SIPA), have been shown to predict early trauma outcomes better than SIPA alone. We sought to determine if one more accurately identifies children in need of trauma team activation.

METHODS

Patients 1 to 18 years old from the 2014-2018 Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program database were included. Sensitivity and specificity for SIPAB+ and rSIG were calculated for components of pediatric trauma team activation, based on criteria standard definitions.

RESULTS

There were 11,426 patients (1.9%) classified as SIPAB+ and 235,672 (39.0%) as having an abnormal rSIG. SIPAB+ was consistently more specific, with specificities exceeding 98%, but its sensitivity was poor (<30%) for all outcomes. In comparison, rSIG was a more sensitive tool, with sensitivities exceeding 60%, and specificity values exceeded 60% for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma systems must determine their priorities to decide how best to incorporate SIPAB+ and rSIG into practice, although rSIG may be preferred as it balances both sensitivity and specificity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.