[Accidents with playground equipment. II. Severity of the lesions classified by an injury scale (Abbreviated Injury Scale)].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Accidents↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “Abbreviated Injury Scale”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Thoracic injuries requiring tube thoracostomy and abbreviated injury scale-85.
Abbreviated injury scale-85 (AIS-85) has been found to be an excellent tool to rapidly and accurately assess and scale the severity of thoracic trauma and to predict prognosis and outcome. Availability of condensed charts of AIS-85 have made its application in clinical practice easy and quick. Even paramedical personnel can be trained to use this scale to compare the data.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
Comparison of Turkish Injury Scale (TIS) with the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS).
According to the Turkish Penal Code, Section 456, an assailant is punished in a correlation to the severity of the victim's injury. In this study, the injury scale used in Turkey in the basis code 456 is compared with Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). For this aim, a total of 984 cases out of the total amount reported at the Traumatology Section of the Turkish Council for Forensic Medicine were randomly selected and evaluated retrospectively. In all, 40.7% of injuries were caused by blunt trauma, whereas 59.3% were caused by a penetrating trauma. According to the Turkish Injury Scale (TIS), 40.3% of the cases were scored to be of a first degree of injury, 15.6% as second degree and 44.1% as third degree. When compared, the score points 3, 4 and 5 in the AIS were seen to be nearly equivalent to the TIS of third degree. From this point of view, in the modified AIS 91.1% of first degree of injury, 51.2% of second degree and 97.2% of third degree of injury are harmonious with TIS. Generally, 83.2% of the cases are harmonious with the AIS system. The purpose of this study is to determine what was the source of differences and to focus on particular traumatic lesions in order to determine a possible rearrangement of the Turkish Injury Scale.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
Improving the sensitivity and specificity of the abbreviated injury scale coding system.
The Abbreviated Injury Scale with Epidemiologic Modifications (AIS 85-EM) was developed to make it possible to code information about anatomic injury types and locations that, although generally available from medical records, is not codable under the standard Abbreviated Injury Scale, published by the American Association for Automotive Medicine in 1985 (AIS 85). In a population-based sample of 3,223 motor vehicle trauma cases, 68 percent of the patients had one or more injuries that were coded to the AIS 85 body region nonspecific category external. When the same patients' injuries were coded using the AIS 85-EM coding procedure, only 15 percent of the patients had injuries that could not be coded to a specific body region. With AIS 85-EM, the proportion of codable head injury cases increased from 16 percent to 37 percent, thereby improving the potential for identifying cases with head and threshold brain injury. The data suggest that body region coding of all injuries is necessary to draw valid and reliable conclusions about changes in injury patterns and their sequelae. The increased specificity of body region coding improves assessments of the efficacy of injury intervention strategies and countermeasure programs using epidemiologic methodology.
Accidents, Traffic↗
Abbreviated injury scale unification: the case for a unified injury system for global use.
BACKGROUND: The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), developed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine is the most widely used anatomic injury severity scale in the world (Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. The Abbreviated Injury Scale; 1985 and 1990 revisions. Des Plaines, IL: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine). However, different user groups have modified the AIS system to fit their needs, and these modifications prevent ready comparison and trending of data collected in these systems in the United States and throughout the world. The United States currently has five AIS-based severity systems and two AIS-based impairment systems in use, with additional revisions forthcoming. Other modified AIS systems are known to be in use in the United Kingdom and Japan. The data collected in these systems cannot be accurately combined or compared without re-coding or the use of complex "mapping" methodologies. Furthermore, the expanding use of data linked from multiple databases to answer complex medical, engineering, or policy issues emphasizes the need for coordination between severity and other injury systems. Linkage of state-wide motor vehicle crash data with data from hospital injury classification systems, mortality files, trauma registry, and national crash databases brings into immediate focus the lack of well defined relationships between the severity coding systems and these other widely used injury systems (Mango N, Garthe E. SAE Congress, February, 1998; Johnson, S, Walker, J. NHTSA Technical Report. DOT HS 808 338, Washington, DC: NHTSA; January, 1996). With the expanding use of linked data in state and national policy decisions, it is vital that consistent standards for injury descriptions, severities, and impairments be available for clinical, engineering, and policy users. METHODS: This paper compares five anatomic severity systems and two impairment systems in terms of purpose, code structure, and use and discusses the reasons for the differences between these systems. With global "harmonization" encouraging greater sharing of international data, the paper also presents the relationship of the severity and impairment systems to US morbidity and reimbursement and worldwide mortality classification systems. RESULTS: To resolve compatibility issues resulting from multiple injury systems, the authors propose that a "unified" system for global use be developed, configured by inputs from major "data owners," users, and analysts. The proposed unified system has six key attributes: backward compatibility with historical data through "maps" so no data are lost; "scalability" to allow a simple level of use for developing countries, a more complex level for crash research and a detailed level for clinical hospital use, all with data compatibility; the ability to satisfy the needs of the engineering community for injury location information and aspect, and also the clinical requirement for precise injury description; inherent integration with whole body severity scores to permit easy computation; compatibility with other injury data systems such as mortality, morbidity, and reimbursement systems; and a mechanism and process to maintain and upgrade the system into the 21st century. CONCLUSION: The authors believe that a "unified" injury system is a necessary and crucial advance from the currently fragmented injury system situation. Unified data can provide a pool of consistent international data to support a variety of important research and prevention and treatment efforts and is essential to satisfy the global needs of the medical and engineering communities.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
A comparison of Abbreviated Injury Scale 1980 and 1985 versions.
The 1980 and 1985 versions of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) are quantitatively and qualitatively compared based on experience gained during the recent coding of nearly 115,000 injuries from more than 33,000 seriously injured patients using both AIS versions. Quantitative comparisons are based on differences in AIS scores and Injury Severity Score (ISS) values which result under the two schemes. Qualitative comparisons concern the completeness and clinical usability of the two scales in a trauma center setting.
Adolescent↗
The Abbreviated Injury Scale. A valuable tool for forensic documentation of trauma.
Anatomic trauma scoring systems are fundamental to trauma research. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and its derivative, the Injury Severity Score (ISS), are the most frequently used scales. We assessed the applicability of the AIS and the ISS systems for postmortem forensic documentation of trauma. In a prospective study, all trauma autopsies performed between January 1 and June 30, 1993, were coded according to the AIS and ISS method. All cases were reviewed by a consultant in forensic medicine and a traumatologist. Cases were grouped in three categories according to ISS values: 0-14, 16-66, and 75. These categories represent minor, major, and incompatible-with-life injuries, respectively. All autopsy findings in which ISS was < or = 14 were peer-reviewed to establish mechanism and cause of death. In the 6-month period, 279 trauma-related autopsies were studied. Age at death averaged 37.1 +/- 18.7 (mean +/- SD). Eighty-six percent of the victims were male. Penetrating trauma was the mechanism of injury in 67%. ISS was 0-14 in 19 cases, 16-66 in 150 cases, and 75 in 110 cases. In conclusion, AIS and ISS scoring systems are applicable to trauma forensic documentation. Using these methods for coding postmortem findings may help in establishing a database for trauma research, and this information could constitute a major part of continuous quality improvement of trauma management. Low ISS values may serve as a warning, sometimes indicating preventable death.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
Abbreviated injury scaling of head injury as a prognostic tool for functional outcome.
The use of Abbreviated Injury Scaling for the head region (HAIS) was evaluated as a prognostic index of functional outcome in 503 consecutive patients with severe injury to the brain who survived initial resuscitation. Although a strong statistical relationship between HAIS and outcome as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale was demonstrated, its clinical usefulness is limited. HAIS may be most useful as a classifier for comparative studies of populations and for the evaluation of therapeutic modalities.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Score: a scoring chart.
The Abbreviated Injury Scale and the Injury Severity Score are important tools for grading the severity of injury to trauma patients. The Trauma Chart provided is a simple and concise guide for scoring and recording this useful information. The chart is useful in both a large wall-mounted form and in the reduced two-page form included in this article.
Accidents, Traffic↗
The Abbreviated Injury Scale and its correlation with preventable traumatic accidental deaths: a study from South Delhi.
Anatomic trauma scoring systems are fundamental to trauma research. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and its derivative, the Injury Severity Score (ISS), are the most frequently used scales. In a prospective study, 400 autopsies of road traffic accident victims performed between January 2002 and December 2003 were coded according to the AIS and ISS methods. All the cases were classified into different injury groups according to the Injury Severity Scale. Fifty-eight cases (14.5%) were assigned an ISS value of <25; 244 (61%) cases were valued between 25-49; 38 cases (9.5%) were valued between 50-74 and 60 (15%) cases had a value of 75. On analysis of medical care, in cases with ISS<50, about 96% of the victims did not receive optimal care quickly enough with a lack of pre-hospital resuscitation measures and lengthy transportation time to hospital being of major importance.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
Methodological considerations in the use of the abbreviated injury scale in trauma epidemiology.
As part of an incidence study of external cause-specific trauma, the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) are being used to measure the severity of the anatomic injuries. Problems identified in the study pilot phase by medical record specialists, after training in AIS procedures, include noteworthy variations in the interpretation of scaling procedures in the AIS dictionary. The AIS dictionary was replaced by a newly designed single page (SP) precoded abstracting form. It contains alphabetical descriptors for each trauma type within a body region and a unique 3-digit identifier assigned to each. The AIS severity codes are not mentioned on the form. Abstractors are instructed to code all injuries for an episode. A computer algorithm has been developed and implemented to assign the AIS severity codes. Accuracy and precision improved markedly by eliminating the need to make severity scoring decisions during the AIS coding process.
Epidemiologic Methods↗
The Abbreviated Injury Scale: application to autopsy data.
Twenty autopsy reports, comprising 1 fall, 1 cutting, 1 burn, 1 drowning, 1 strangulation, 3 gunshot wound, and 13 traffic fatalities, were scored by the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and the Injury Severity Score (ISS). The codes were adequate for wounds of skin and long bones, and for most wounds of viscera. The autopsy descriptions were more detailed than the coding criteria for craniocerebral, cervicovertebral and muscular trauma, and less detailed for thoracoabdominal visceral, and long bone trauma. Lung contusions and rib fractures received scores that seemed unduly high, possibly reflecting the greater sensitivity of autopsy diagnosis over clinical diagnosis for these lesions. Complete hinge fractures of the skull base scored 4 (severe), which does not reflect the almost universally lethal nature of the accompanying cerebral concussion, which was itself not codeable. AIS scores were low and did not seem to reflect the lethal outcome when the lethal mechanism was purely physiologic and without a striking morphologic derangement, as in instances of cerebral or cardiac concussion, compression of the neck, occlusive airway hemorrhage, and visceral herniation into an adjacent body cavity. The scores were similarly low when therapy was delayed or adverse. Low AIS and ISS scores in a fatality from blunt or penetrating trauma may be useful retrospective clues to the presence of purely physiologic death mechanisms or therapeutic problems.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
The abbreviated injury scale as a predictor of outcome of severe head injury.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the correlation between the worst abbreviated injury scale 1990 (AIS) intracranial severity score and outcome following severe head injury. DESIGN: The initial CT scans of 109 severely head injury patients were examined by a neuroradiologist and classified according to the worst applicable intracranial severity code from the AIS. This score was then correlated with the glasgow outcome scale (GOS) at 6 months. For comparison, the GOS was also correlated with the diffuse injury scale (DIS) described by L.F. Marshall et al. [5], the worst post-resuscitation Glasgow coma score (GCS) in the first 24 h, and the head injury outcome prediction tree described by Choi et al. [1]. RESULTS: Our results show Spearman rank correlation coefficients of 0.58 (p < 0.001), 0.47 (p < 0.001), 0.45 (p < 0.001), and 0.31 (p < 0.01) for the correlation between the AIS, prediction tree, DIS, and GCS respectively and the GOS. Independent outcome (i.e. GOS good or moderate) was strongly predicted by an AIS of 3 or less (positive predictive value 95%, specificity 98%, sensitivity 40%, likelihood ratio 25:1). Death or vegetative survival was less strongly predicted in patients with an AIS of 5 (positive predictive value 71%, specificity 75%, sensitivity 67%, likelihood ratio 2.7:1). CONCLUSION: The AIS, based on initial CT scan, provides useful prognostic information in patients with severe head injury.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
Comparisons of survival predictions using survival risk ratios based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Abbreviated Injury Scale trauma diagnosis codes.
BACKGROUND: We conducted a comparison of methods for predicting survival using survival risk ratios (SRRs), including new comparisons based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) versus Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) six-digit codes. METHODS: From the Pennsylvania trauma center's registry, all direct trauma admissions were collected through June 22, 1999. Patients with no comorbid medical diagnoses and both ICD-9 and AIS injury codes were used for comparisons based on a single set of data. SRRs for ICD-9 and then for AIS diagnostic codes were each calculated two ways: from the survival rate of patients with each diagnosis and when each diagnosis was an isolated diagnosis. Probabilities of survival for the cohort were calculated using each set of SRRs by the multiplicative ICISS method and, where appropriate, the minimum SRR method. These prediction sets were then internally validated against actual survival by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic. RESULTS: The 41,364 patients had 1,224 different ICD-9 injury diagnoses in 32,261 combinations and 1,263 corresponding AIS injury diagnoses in 31,755 combinations, ranging from 1 to 27 injuries per patient. All conventional ICD-9-based combinations of SRRs and methods had better Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic fits than their AIS-based counterparts. The minimum SRR method produced better calibration than the multiplicative methods, presumably because it did not magnify inaccuracies in the SRRs that might occur with multiplication. CONCLUSION: Predictions of survival based on anatomic injury alone can be performed using ICD-9 codes, with no advantage from extra coding of AIS diagnoses. Predictions based on the single worst SRR were closer to actual outcomes than those based on multiplying SRRs.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
Abbreviated Injury Scale does not reflect the added morbidity of multiple lower extremity fractures.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if patients with multiple lower extremity fractures have worse outcomes than do patients with isolated femur fractures, and to determine if the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) should distinguish between single and multiple lower extremity fractures. DESIGN: A retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All blunt trauma patients at least 15 years of age treated at a level 1 trauma center from January 1990 through December 1993. Three groups of patients were selected. Group 1 included 50 patients whose only significant injury was a diaphyseal femur fracture. They had no other long bone fractures, minimal injuries to other body areas, and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) < or = 14. Group 2 was consisted of 29 patients with a femur fracture, at least one other diaphyseal lower extremity fracture, and also an ISS < or = 14. Group 3 consisted of 23 patients who had fracture patterns similar to those of group 2, but also had more severe nonextremity injuries (ISS > or = 15). Hospital morbidity and mortality rates were compared with t tests or chi-square analysis. Type 1 error probability was established at p < 0.05. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with patients in group 1, patients in group 2 had an identical ISS (10.1 vs. 10.6, respectively), but had higher transfusion requirements (0.3 vs. 3.9 units), more days in the intensive care unit (ICU) (0.02 vs. 1.4), a higher incidence of adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (0 vs. 14%), longer hospital stays (6.0 vs. 14.8 days), greater disability at discharge (disability score 2.2 vs. 3.2), and a higher mortality rate (0 vs. 3.4%; p < 0.05 all variables). Patients in group 3 had worse outcomes than the other two groups: ISS = 30.1; transfusions = 11.9 units; ICU days = 9.1; ARDS incidence = 26%; hospital days = 29.9; disability score = 3.9; mortality = 26% (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although AIS and ISS appropriately reflect the impact of extraskeletal injuries in patients with femur fractures, they do not adequately reflect the increased morbidity associated with multiple lower extremity fractures. The AIS-Extremity Score may need to be upgraded for multiple long bone fractures of the lower extremities.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
The top 10 Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) coding faux pas.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
[Objective evaluation of thoracic injuries and associated injuries using the Abbreviated Injury Scale and the New Injury Severity Score].
The authors focused attention on objectivization of the severity of chest injuries and associated injuries using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and the New Injury Severity Score (NISS). They evaluated injuries detected on post-mortem examination in subjects who died from the sequelae of injuries in the Faculty Hospital Prague 10. The group comprised a total of 90 subjects regardless of sex aged 17-94 years who died in the hospital in 1996-2000. Traffic injuries accounted for 70% deaths, other blunt injuries for 27.8% and only 2.2% were penetrating injuries of the chest. The mean AIS value of the chest was 3.7, the mean value of NISS was 50.7. The NISS value declined in relation to age of the deceased patients and the period of survival. The period of survival varied from 30 mins. to 136 days. The mean NISS value on survival up to 5 hours after injury was 55.0. On comparison of our group we found that the results were consistent with those of American studies.
Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
The Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Score. Levels of inter- and intrarater reliability.
Given the wide usage and proven value of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) in rating severity of trauma, it is essential that certain reliability issues concerning its application be resolved. This article describes a study designed to address these reliability issues. Each of 15 raters with varying qualifications was asked to identify AIS code injuries sustained by 375 trauma patients admitted to four Baltimore area hospitals. Results showed that as a group, physicians and nurses tend to be more reliable in their ratings than either emergency medical technicians (EMTs) or nonclinical technicians, although a research assistant who is well trained in AIS coding and is a diligent worker can use the AIS to code severity as reliably as the physicians when sufficient information is provided in the medical chart. Reliability of AIS scoring was somewhat higher for blunt (vehicular and nonvehicular) versus penetrating injuries.
Costs and Cost Analysis↗