Injury Severity Assessment: A Review of the Most Commonly Used Systems for Injury Severity Assessment in Trauma Patients

A. Karlbauer , R. Woidke

N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics ›› 2003, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (3) : 16 -19.

PDF
N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics ›› 2003, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (3) : 16 -19. DOI: 10.17816/vto200310316-19
Original study articles
research-article

Injury Severity Assessment: A Review of the Most Commonly Used Systems for Injury Severity Assessment in Trauma Patients

Author information +
History +
PDF

Abstract

The most commonly used systems for the evaluation of injury severity in traumatologic patients are presented: Glasgo Coma Scale, Mangled Extremity Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, Abbreviated Injury Scale, Injury Severity Score, Pediatric Trauma Score. Their advantages and disadvantages are given. At present Injury Severity Score is considered to be a «Golden Standart».

Keywords

severity assessment / damage / trauma patients

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
A. Karlbauer, R. Woidke. Injury Severity Assessment: A Review of the Most Commonly Used Systems for Injury Severity Assessment in Trauma Patients. N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics, 2003, 10(3): 16-19 DOI:10.17816/vto200310316-19

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

[1]

Baker S.P. et al. //J. Trauma. — 1974. — Vol. 14. — P. 187-196.

[2]

Balogh Z., Offner P.J., Moore E.E. //Ibid. — 2000. — Vol. 48. — P. 624-928.

[3]

Boyd C.R., Tolson M.A., Copes W.S. //Ibid. — 1987. — Vol. 27. — P. 370-378.

[4]

Champion H.R. et al. //Crit. Care Med. — 1981. — Vol. 9. — P. 672-676.

[5]

Champion H.R. et al. //J. Trauma. — 1989. — Vol. 29. — P. 623-629.

[6]

Champion H.R., Copes W.S., Sacco W.J. //Ibid. — 1996. — Vol. 40. — P. 42-49.

[7]

Copes W.S., Sacco W.J., Champion H.R., Bain L.W. //Proceedings of the 33rd Annual meeting of the Association for the advancement of automotive medicine. — Baltimore. — P. 205-218.

[8]

Johannsen et al. //J. Trauma. — 1990. — Vol. 30. — P. 569-572.

[9]

Markle J., Cayten C.G., Byrne D.W. //Ibid. — 1992. — Vol. 33, N 2. — P. 326-332.

[10]

Moore E.E., Shackford S.R., Pachter H.L. et al. //Ibid. —1989— Vol. 29. — P. 1664.

[11]

Moore E.E., Cogbill T.H., Malangoni M.A. et al. //Ibid. —1989— Vol. 30. — P. 1427.

[12]

Moore E.E., Cognill T.H., Jurkovich G.J. //Ibid. — 1992. — Vol. 33. — P. 337.

[13]

Moore E.E., Malangoni M.A., Cogbill T.H. et al. //Ibid. —1994— Vol. 36. — P. 229.

[14]

Moore E.E., Cogbill T.H., Jurkovich M.D. et al. //Ibid. —1994— Vol. 38. — P. 323.

[15]

Osler T., Baker S.P., Long W. //Ibid. — 1997. — Vol. 43. — P. 922-926.

[16]

Teasdale G., Jennett B. //Lancet. — 1974. —Vol. 13, N 2. — P. 81-83.

[17]

Tepas J.J. 3rd et al. //J. Pediatr. Surg. — 1987. — Vol. 22.— P. 14-18.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector

AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF

118

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

AI思维导图

/