Injury Severity Assessment: A Review of the Most Commonly Used Systems for Injury Severity Assessment in Trauma Patients
- Authors: Karlbauer A.1, Woidke R.1
 - 
							Affiliations: 
							
- Trauma Hospital
 
 - Issue: Vol 10, No 3 (2003)
 - Pages: 16-19
 - Section: Original study articles
 - URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/0869-8678/article/view/48128
 - DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/vto200310316-19
 - ID: 48128
 
Cite item
Full Text
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
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
A. Karlbauer
Trauma Hospital
														Email: info@eco-vector.com
				                					                																			                												                	Austria, 							Salzburg						
R. Woidke
Trauma Hospital
							Author for correspondence.
							Email: info@eco-vector.com
				                					                																			                												                	Austria, 							Salzburg						
References
- Baker S.P. et al. //J. Trauma. — 1974. — Vol. 14. — P. 187-196.
 - Balogh Z., Offner P.J., Moore E.E. //Ibid. — 2000. — Vol. 48. — P. 624-928.
 - Boyd C.R., Tolson M.A., Copes W.S. //Ibid. — 1987. — Vol. 27. — P. 370-378.
 - Champion H.R. et al. //Crit. Care Med. — 1981. — Vol. 9. — P. 672-676.
 - Champion H.R. et al. //J. Trauma. — 1989. — Vol. 29. — P. 623-629.
 - Champion H.R., Copes W.S., Sacco W.J. //Ibid. — 1996. — Vol. 40. — P. 42-49.
 - 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.
 - Johannsen et al. //J. Trauma. — 1990. — Vol. 30. — P. 569-572.
 - Markle J., Cayten C.G., Byrne D.W. //Ibid. — 1992. — Vol. 33, N 2. — P. 326-332.
 - Moore E.E., Shackford S.R., Pachter H.L. et al. //Ibid. —1989— Vol. 29. — P. 1664.
 - Moore E.E., Cogbill T.H., Malangoni M.A. et al. //Ibid. —1989— Vol. 30. — P. 1427.
 - Moore E.E., Cognill T.H., Jurkovich G.J. //Ibid. — 1992. — Vol. 33. — P. 337.
 - Moore E.E., Malangoni M.A., Cogbill T.H. et al. //Ibid. —1994— Vol. 36. — P. 229.
 - Moore E.E., Cogbill T.H., Jurkovich M.D. et al. //Ibid. —1994— Vol. 38. — P. 323.
 - Osler T., Baker S.P., Long W. //Ibid. — 1997. — Vol. 43. — P. 922-926.
 - Teasdale G., Jennett B. //Lancet. — 1974. —Vol. 13, N 2. — P. 81-83.
 - Tepas J.J. 3rd et al. //J. Pediatr. Surg. — 1987. — Vol. 22.— P. 14-18.
 
Supplementary files
				
			
					
						
						
				

