Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Revised Trauma Score

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) is a standardized physiological scoring system designed to evaluate the severity of injuries in patients by quantifying three key clinical parameters: the (GCS) for neurological status, systolic blood pressure (SBP) for circulatory function, and (RR) for ventilatory effort. Developed as a refinement of the original Trauma Score introduced in 1981, the RTS was first published in by Champion et al. to simplify field assessment, eliminate subjective elements like and respiratory expansion that were prone to interobserver variability, and improve prognostic accuracy, particularly for . The score ranges from 0 (indicating severe physiological derangement and high mortality risk) to 12 (normal and low risk), with a version (T-RTS) using raw coded values for rapid prehospital decision-making and a weighted coded version (coded RTS or RTSc) calculated as RTSc = 0.9368 × GCSc + 0.7326 × SBPc + 0.2908 × RRc for outcome prediction, where each component is coded from 0 (worst) to 4 (best). In clinical practice, the RTS serves multiple critical roles, including prehospital to identify patients requiring immediate to trauma centers—typically those with an RTS below 11 or 12—and predicting in-hospital mortality, with studies showing high (e.g., 97% at a cutoff of 7.108 for geriatric patients) and specificity (e.g., 80-90.5% in various cohorts). It is particularly valuable in resource-limited settings and for helicopter emergency medical services evaluations, where a cutoff of 11.5 has demonstrated 84% and 90.5% specificity for severe outcomes. However, limitations include potential underestimation of isolated due to its reliance on , challenges in scoring intubated or sedated patients, and inferior performance compared to combined systems like TRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score) or ( Trauma Score) in some mortality predictions (e.g., KTS of 0.88 vs. RTS 0.82). Despite these, the RTS remains a cornerstone of , integrated into major databases like the National Trauma Data Bank for quality improvement and research.

Overview

Definition and Purpose

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) is a physiological scoring system designed to quantify severity by integrating assessments of three key : the (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and (RR). Developed as a refinement of earlier trauma assessment tools, the RTS provides a standardized, rapid method to evaluate a patient's physiological response to injury, enabling clinicians to gauge the extent of derangement in critical functions without requiring anatomical details. This approach emphasizes functional impairment over injury location, making it particularly suitable for initial evaluations in resource-limited environments. The primary purpose of the RTS is to facilitate quick decisions in prehospital and settings, predict survival probabilities, and inform resource allocation for patients. By offering a numerical representation of severity, it helps prioritize patients for transport to appropriate facilities, such as trauma centers, thereby optimizing outcomes and reducing unnecessary transfers. The score's design supports both (using a simplified version) and prognostic applications, contributing to evidence-based protocols that minimize overtriage and undertriage errors. The weighted coded RTS yields a score ranging from 0 (indicating the worst with no ) to 7.8408 (representing normal physiological status and the best ), while the triage version (T-RTS) ranges from 0 to 12. Established in 1989 as an improvement over the original 1981 Trauma Score, the RTS enhances field applicability by simplifying components and improving reliability in low-light or chaotic conditions.

Key Components

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) relies on three key physiological parameters to evaluate trauma severity: the (GCS), systolic (SBP), and respiratory rate (RR). These components provide a rapid assessment of neurological, circulatory, and ventilatory functions, respectively, enabling clinicians to gauge patient stability in resource-limited settings. The measures neurological function through evaluations of eye opening, verbal response, and motor response, with scores ranging from 3 (indicating severe coma and profound impairment) to 15 (fully alert), where scores of 13-15 indicate mild or no neurological deficit. This parameter is clinically significant for detecting traumatic injuries, which are a leading cause of mortality in trauma patients, as it quantifies level of consciousness and potential intracranial damage. Systolic blood pressure assesses circulatory stability, with normal values exceeding 89 mmHg and critical lows approaching 0 mmHg (indicating no palpable pulse and severe hypovolemic or ). It is vital for identifying hemorrhagic , a common complication in that can lead to if not addressed promptly. Respiratory rate evaluates ventilatory status, where normal ranges fall between 10 and 29 breaths per minute, while extremes such as greater than 29 breaths per minute ( signaling distress) or 0 (apnea indicating ) denote severe compromise. This component highlights issues like or , which impair oxygenation and contribute to rapid deterioration. These parameters were selected for the RTS because they can be obtained quickly and reliably in prehospital or environments without advanced , , or tests, while strongly correlating with mortality risk in cases. In multisystem , derangements often interlink; for instance, low SBP from blood loss frequently coincides with elevated due to compensatory and reduced GCS from hypoperfusion-induced , amplifying overall prognostic concern.

History and Development

Original Trauma Score

The Original Trauma Score (TS), developed by Howard R. Champion and colleagues in the mid-1970s as an initial field tool for patients, was formally published in 1981. This system marked the first physiological scoring method designed specifically for prehospital assessment, drawing from Champion's experience in care to enable rapid evaluation of severity without relying solely on anatomical descriptions. It aimed to standardize decisions by quantifying and neurological status, facilitating the transport of patients to appropriate facilities. The TS comprised five unweighted parameters: the (GCS) for neurological function, systolic blood pressure (SBP) for circulatory status, (RR) for ventilatory effort, respiratory expansion for chest mechanics, and time for peripheral perfusion. GCS, SBP, and RR were each scored from 0 (worst) to 4 (best), while respiratory expansion and capillary refill were scored from 0 to 2, yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 16, with higher values reflecting better overall physiological stability. Scores of 12 or below were typically indicative of requiring transport to a . Despite its innovation, the had notable limitations that hindered its practical application. The inclusion of five parameters made it somewhat complex for quick field calculation under time constraints, particularly in resource-limited prehospital environments. Moreover, the component proved subjective and unreliable, varying with observer experience and environmental factors such as temperature. The unweighted summation also failed to adequately prioritize parameters for prognostic purposes, reducing its precision in predicting survival outcomes. Early validation efforts, as reported in the foundational , demonstrated a correlation between TS values and survival rates across civilian and military datasets. Subsequent prehospital confirmed its utility for , with sensitivity around 90% for identifying severe injuries, though inter-rater variability remained a concern. These findings established the TS as a foundational tool, prompting revisions to address its shortcomings.

Creation of the Revised Trauma Score

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) was developed by Howard R. Champion and colleagues to refine the original Trauma Score, enhancing its practicality for prehospital and more accurate mortality prediction in patients. First published in 1989 in the Journal of Trauma, the RTS emerged from efforts to address inconsistencies in field assessments and improve prognostic reliability. A primary rationale for the revision was to eliminate subjective components prone to interobserver variability, such as time and respiratory expansion, which complicated rapid evaluation in austere environments. Instead, the RTS streamlined to three objective physiological parameters: the (GCS) for neurological status, systolic (SBP) for circulatory adequacy, and (RR) for ventilatory function. This reduction prioritized measurable vital signs while introducing a weighted summation formula, derived via , to better correlate with survival outcomes and emphasize impacts through heavier GCS weighting. The weights were calculated using data from the Outcome Study (MTOS), a large-scale analysis of over 80,000 cases across 139 North American hospitals from 1982 to 1987, enabling robust statistical modeling of physiological derangements against mortality. Initial validation confirmed the RTS's superiority over its predecessor, with the triage-oriented version (T-RTS) demonstrating over 97% in identifying nonsurvivors who required transfer, albeit with a modest in specificity. For outcome prognostication, the full RTS exhibited enhanced reliability and predictive accuracy, particularly for head-injured patients, achieving an area under the curve () of approximately 0.85 for mortality in foundational datasets. These improvements established the RTS as a more dependable physiologic index for severity. The RTS gained rapid acceptance following its introduction, with integration into the ' (ATLS) guidelines in early subsequent editions, solidifying its role as a core component of standardized trauma care protocols.

Calculation Method

Parameter Coding

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) employs a categorical coding system for its three physiological parameters— (GCS), systolic (SBP), and (RR)—to simplify field assessment and standardize scoring. Each parameter is assigned a numerical code from 0 to 4 based on predefined physiological ranges, reflecting degrees of derangement. These codes are derived from the original Trauma Score framework but refined using GCS for neurological evaluation. For GCS, which assesses , the coding is as follows: 13–15 (mild impairment or normal) = 4 points; 9–12 (moderate impairment) = 3 points; 6–8 (severe impairment) = 2 points; 4–5 (very severe) = 1 point; and 3 (deep unconsciousness) = 0 points. SBP coding captures circulatory status: >89 mmHg (normal or near-normal) = 4 points; 76–89 mmHg (mild ) = 3 points; 50–75 mmHg (moderate ) = 2 points; 1–49 mmHg (severe ) = 1 point; and 0 mmHg (no palpable pulse) = 0 points. RR coding evaluates ventilatory function: 10–29 breaths per minute (normal range) = 4 points; >29 breaths per minute () = 3 points; 6–9 breaths per minute () = 2 points; 1–5 breaths per minute (severe ) = 1 point; and 0 breaths per minute (apnea) = 0 points.
ParameterCode 4Code 3Code 2Code 1Code 0
GCS13–159–126–84–53
SBP (mmHg)>8976–8950–751–490
RR (breaths/min)10–29>296–91–50
Codes are assigned using initial field or measurements to capture the patient's prehospital physiological state, without adjustments for therapeutic interventions such as , which might alter . This approach ensures consistency in and avoids confounding by treatment effects. The bin thresholds for coding were established based on empirical mortality risk data from large cohorts, where specific ranges correlate with escalating death probabilities; for instance, SBP below 50 mmHg is associated with over 50% mortality due to profound hemorrhagic shock. Similar risk gradients underpin the GCS and RR categories, prioritizing thresholds that delineate survivability in validation studies.

Weighted Scoring Formula

The weighted scoring formula for the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) combines the coded values of the (GCS), systolic (SBP), and (RR) using coefficients derived to predict probability. The formula is given by: \text{RTS} = 0.9368 \times \text{GCS}_\text{code} + 0.7326 \times \text{SBP}_\text{code} + 0.2908 \times \text{RR}_\text{code} These coefficients were obtained through multivariate analysis applied to data from the Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS), a large of over 80,000 patients, to optimize the score's with in-hospital ; the values were subsequently rounded for clinical practicality while maintaining predictive accuracy. The resulting RTS value ranges from 0 (indicating maximal physiologic derangement and highest mortality risk) to 7.8408 (reflecting normal and minimal risk), with higher scores corresponding to lower predicted mortality—for instance, an RTS of 7.84 is associated with approximately % probability in validated cohorts. To illustrate, consider a hypothetical with GCS of 14 (coded as 4), SBP of 80 mmHg (coded as 3), and RR of 20 breaths per minute (coded as 4). Substituting into the yields: \text{RTS} = 0.9368 \times 4 + 0.7326 \times 3 + 0.2908 \times 4 = 3.7472 + 2.1978 + 1.1632 = 7.1082 \approx 7.11 This score suggests a relatively favorable prognosis, though final interpretation requires integration with other clinical factors. In practice, the full weighted RTS is often computed using nomograms, handheld devices, or mobile applications for rapid assessment in resource-limited settings, while the unweighted sum of the coded values (ranging from 0 to 12, known as the Triage RTS) serves as a simpler proxy in prehospital triage protocols to identify patients needing immediate trauma center transport.

Clinical Applications

Triage in Prehospital Settings

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) is integrated into prehospital triage protocols, including the (ACS) Field Triage Decision Scheme, to prioritize trauma victims for transport to appropriate facilities. In this scheme, physiologic criteria derived from RTS components—such as a (GCS) score of ≤13, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, or respiratory rate <10 or >29 breaths per minute—trigger highest priority transport to a Level I . In field settings, the Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS), an unweighted adaptation of the RTS based on GCS, , and systolic , categorizes to guide resource allocation and transport urgency. Scores of 12 indicate minimal injuries (T3), 11 denote delayed needs (T2), 1-10 signal immediate priority (T1), and 0 identifies deceased. The RTS offers advantages in prehospital environments due to its rapid calculation from readily available , enabling (EMS) personnel to efficiently sort multiple casualties during mass casualty incidents. It supports decisions on transport mode, such as versus ground, where lower RTS values are associated with improved survival outcomes from air transport in select severe cases. Evidence indicates that incorporating the RTS enhances performance, with studies demonstrating improved reliability in identifying . The RTS is often combined with assessments of mechanism of injury and anatomic criteria in comprehensive algorithms to optimize accuracy.

Prognostication and

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) plays a central role in prognostication by integrating into the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) model, which combines RTS with the (ISS) and patient age to estimate the probability of survival (Ps) for trauma patients. This logistic regression-based approach yields Ps values ranging from 0 to 1, where lower RTS values—reflecting deranged , systolic , and —correlate with reduced survival odds. For instance, an RTS of approximately 4 is associated with a survival probability below 60%, indicating roughly 50% mortality risk in severe cases. TRISS, incorporating RTS, has been a standard for outcome prediction since its development in the , enabling clinicians to stratify risk and inform expectations for recovery. In settings, RTS guides resource allocation decisions, including ICU admissions, blood product distribution, and surgical prioritization, by quantifying physiological derangement to identify patients needing urgent interventions. Studies using National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) data from the confirm RTS's utility in predicting in-hospital mortality, with area under the curve () values typically ranging from 0.80 to 0.90 for cases, demonstrating moderate to excellent discrimination for 28-day outcomes. A cutoff RTS below 11, for example, predicts mortality with 92.9% and 81.8% specificity (AUC 0.929), supporting its role in flagging high-risk patients for escalated care. Low RTS scores (e.g., <4) prompt activation of massive transfusion protocols (MTP) to optimize hemostatic resuscitation, as outlined in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines, where RTS helps target blood components to those with life-threatening hemorrhage. RTS also informs consideration of advanced therapies like extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in refractory cases; trauma patients initiated on veno-venous ECMO often present with median RTS around 4, and higher scores (e.g., >5) are linked to , underscoring its value in selecting candidates for such resource-intensive support. As of 2025, RTS remains endorsed in the ATLS 11th edition for prognostication and MTP activation, though its application is increasingly augmented by point-of-care (POCUS) protocols like extended FAST (eFAST), which enhance RTS by providing real-time anatomic insights into injury severity and guiding precise resource use.

Limitations and Comparisons

Inherent Limitations

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) exhibits physiological bias by relying exclusively on (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and (RR)—while disregarding anatomical injury patterns, patient age, and comorbidities. This limitation can lead to underestimation of severity in cases where vital signs remain stable despite significant internal injuries, such as . For instance, patients with compensated may receive inflated RTS values, masking the need for urgent . Practical challenges in field application further compromise RTS reliability. In intubated or sedated patients, GCS assessment is invalidated, often requiring substitution with pre-intubation values that may not reflect current neurological status. Additionally, GCS evaluation in agitated or uncooperative patients introduces subjectivity, reducing inter-rater consistency in prehospital settings. Prognostically, RTS demonstrates gaps in accuracy across trauma subtypes. It tends to overestimate survival in penetrating injuries due to its physiological focus, which delays recognition of rapid , with reported as low as 54% for severe cases when triage RTS falls below 11. Overall mortality prediction typically ranges from 80-97% depending on cutoffs, but performance declines in vulnerable populations; in elderly patients, the area under the curve () drops to approximately 0.81, reflecting poorer discrimination compared to younger cohorts. Developed from 1980s datasets, RTS incorporates outdated thresholds, such as SBP categories that do not fully account for contemporary prehospital interventions like aggressive fluid , which can normalize initial and inflate scores. This renders it less predictive in modern contexts, including resource-rich systems with advanced care that alter early physiological responses. To mitigate these inherent limitations, RTS should not be used in isolation but combined with anatomical assessments or serial measurements to track trends in over time, enhancing its utility in dynamic scenarios.

Comparisons to Other Trauma Scoring Systems

The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) represents an improvement over the Original Trauma Score (TS) introduced in 1981, primarily through simplification and reduced subjectivity. While the TS incorporated five parameters—including separate components of the (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), (RR), and additional elements like eye opening and verbal response—the RTS streamlines this to three coded physiological variables: GCS, SBP, and RR. This reduction minimizes inter-observer variability, as the TS's inclusion of more granular GCS subcomponents and subjective assessments led to inconsistent application in prehospital settings. In comparison to the (GCS, , SBP) and modified GAP (MGAP) scores, which are designed for rapid prehospital , the RTS offers greater at the cost of slightly increased . The and MGAP use only three straightforward s, making them easier to compute in resource-limited environments, whereas the RTS's inclusion of adds a layer of detail for assessing respiratory compromise. Recent studies from the indicate similar mortality prediction capabilities across these systems, with values hovering around 0.90 for all; for instance, one analysis of multiple trauma patients found the MGAP achieving the highest , while the RTS and were closely comparable in ruling out in-hospital mortality. However, the RTS's additional parameter can provide nuanced insights in cases involving respiratory distress, though its coding requirements may slow application compared to the binary or ordinal scoring in GAP/MGAP. The RTS serves as a physiological complement to anatomical scoring systems like the (ISS), which quantifies injury extent based on the across body regions, and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), a hybrid model integrating RTS, ISS, age, and injury mechanism. Unlike the ISS, which requires detailed radiographic and surgical information and thus delays computation, the RTS relies on immediate for faster . TRISS achieves superior overall mortality prediction with an of approximately 0.95 by combining physiological (RTS) and anatomical (ISS) data, outperforming standalone RTS ( ~0.89) and ISS ( ~0.87) in comprehensive assessments. Nonetheless, the RTS excels in initial field evaluation where anatomical details are unavailable, making it indispensable for early resource allocation. Among modern scores, such as the Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS), the RTS remains globally validated but may be outperformed in some contexts for in-hospital mortality prediction. EMTRAS incorporates , GCS, , and and has demonstrated higher values (e.g., 0.94 vs. 0.92 for RTS) in studies of adult patients, particularly for short-term outcomes. EMTRAS's focus on accessible metrics yields better sensitivity for severe cases in certain settings, though the RTS's emphasis on ensures broader applicability in diverse systems. Clinically, the RTS is preferred for initial prehospital due to its speed and physiological focus, while transitioning to TRISS or hybrid models is recommended for detailed prognostication and outcome auditing. Recent 2023 studies underscore the value of such hybrids, showing that integrating RTS with anatomical scores like ISS in TRISS enhances predictive accuracy ( up to 0.95) over physiologic scores alone, particularly for neurotrauma and in high-volume centers. As of 2025, studies continue to validate RTS with around 0.90 for mortality prediction in various populations, including geriatric and pediatric trauma.

References

  1. [1]
    A revision of the Trauma Score - PubMed
    The Trauma Score (TS) has been revised. The revision includes Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and respiratory rate (RR)Missing: original paper
  2. [2]
    Revised Trauma Scale - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
    Nov 7, 2022 · [1][2] The TS was designed to assist with field triage to reduce the risk of overtriage, which can contribute to the high cost of regional ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  3. [3]
    Trauma Scoring Systems - Medscape Reference
    Jun 28, 2024 · The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) is one of the more common physiologic scores in use. It combines 3 specific, commonly assessed clinical ...
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
    Trauma score - PubMed
    Trauma score. Crit Care Med. 1981 Sep;9(9):672-6. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198109000-00015. Authors. H R Champion, W J Sacco, A J Carnazzo, W Copes, W J Fouty.
  6. [6]
    History and Current Status of Trauma Scoring Systems | JAMA Surgery
    A comparison of the Trauma Score, the Revised Trauma Score and the Pediatric Trauma Score . Ann Emerg Med . 1989;18:1053-1058.Crossref. 17. Baker SP, O'Neill ...
  7. [7]
    Predicting outcome after multiple trauma: which scoring system?
    The most widely used systems for the purpose of predicting outcome after trauma are based on combined anatomical and physiological parameters.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Trauma score - Pomphrey Consulting
    Trauma score. Champion et al—trauma score. A. Respiratory rate. Number of respirations in 15 sec, multiply by four. Value. Points. Score. 10-24. 25-35. >35. <10.
  9. [9]
    The Trauma Score as a Triage Tool in the Prehospital Setting
    We prospectively tested the Trauma Score (TS) as a field triage tool and evaluated its accuracy against that of the Injury Severity Score (ISS).
  10. [10]
    Unification of the Revised Trauma Score - PubMed
    The predictive accuracy of the MTOS-RTS, POP-RTS, and the T-RTS were compared using measures of discrimination and model fit from logistic regression models.
  11. [11]
    The Major Trauma Outcome Study: establishing national norms for ...
    The Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) is a retrospective descriptive study of injury severity and outcome coordinated through the American College of Surgeons' ...Missing: development | Show results with:development
  12. [12]
    Mortality in hypotensive trauma patients requiring laparotomy is ...
    Jun 17, 2021 · The overall mortality rate was 18%, but mortality increased as SBP decreased (≥90=9%, 80 to 89=20%, 70 to 79=21%, 60 to 69=48%, 0 to 59=66%).
  13. [13]
    Evaluation of the Revised Trauma Score in Predicting Outcomes of ...
    Each parameter of the RTS-w is assigned a weight, which was developed from logistic regression analysis based on the Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS). RTS-w is ...
  14. [14]
    Analysis of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) in 200 victims ... - SciELO
    When comparing only patients who died, we found statistical significance: while in G2 the victim had a RTS median value of 7.84 (98.8% survival probability), in ...
  15. [15]
    Revised Trauma Score Calculator - MDApp
    Mar 21, 2017 · The RTS scores range between 0 and 7.8408, where the higher the score, the higher the chances of survival following the traumatic or non- ...
  16. [16]
    Revised Trauma Score - MDCalc
    The Revised Trauma Score quantifies severity of trauma injuries based on GCS, blood pressure, and respiratory rate.Missing: 0-30 | Show results with:0-30<|control11|><|separator|>
  17. [17]
    Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients - CDC
    Jan 13, 2012 · This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from ...
  18. [18]
    Field Triage Guidelines | ACS - The American College of Surgeons
    The Guidelines have been widely adopted by trauma systems in the United States to support decision making by EMS clinicians in transport destination ...
  19. [19]
    Trauma Triage and Scoring | Doctor - Patient.info
    Mar 2, 2025 · The triage sort or Revised Trauma Score (RTS). Used as a triage tool in a pre-hospital setting. It is a common physiological scoring ...
  20. [20]
    Correlation Between the Revised Trauma Score and Injury Severity ...
    Aug 10, 2025 · The RTS/Sort triage assigned the RTS score of 1-10 as Immediate (red), 11 as Delayed (yellow), 12 as Minimal (green), and 0 as Dead (black) ...Missing: expectant | Show results with:expectant
  21. [21]
    Association of direct helicopter versus ground transport ... - PubMed
    Helicopter EMS transport was associated with a decreased hazard of mortality among certain patients transported from the scene of injury directly to ...Missing: decisions | Show results with:decisions
  22. [22]
    Triage of the Trauma Patient - Practice Management Guideline
    This scheme is based on a 5-10% under-triage rate and a 30–50% over-triage rate. It is this very issue which seems to be the most vexing: How do we ensure the ...
  23. [23]
    Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) - MDCalc
    The Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) estimates the probability of survival for trauma patients.
  24. [24]
    The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) - Evidencio
    The score consists of three continuous measurements, Glasgow Coma Scale, Systolic Blood Pressure, and Respiratory Rate.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  25. [25]
    Evaluation of trauma and prediction of outcome using TRISS method
    TRISS determines the probability of survival (PS) of a patient from the ISS and RTS. The revised trauma score is made up of a combination of results from three ...
  26. [26]
    Statistical validation of the Revised Trauma Score - PubMed
    Background: To validate the accuracy of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and its components for predicting in-hospital mortality.Missing: NTDB 1990s
  27. [27]
    Validation of revised trauma score in the emergency... - Lippincott
    The revised trauma score (RTS) is a physiological triage system based upon Glasgow coma scale (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and respiratory rate (RR).
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Advanced Trauma Life Support®
    The Tenth Edition of ATLS continues a tradition of innovation. It takes advantage of electronic delivery and by offering two forms of courses (traditional and.Missing: prognostication | Show results with:prognostication
  29. [29]
    Early veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is ... - NIH
    Revised Trauma Scores and Trauma Score and Injury Severity Scores were higher in survivors. Abbreviated Injury Severity Scores were similar between groups.Missing: consideration | Show results with:consideration
  30. [30]
    Hocus pocus: advanced point-of-care ultrasound from the trauma ...
    Apr 14, 2025 · This article reviews the currently applicable techniques relevant to the trauma patient, including regional protocols such as the FAST, extended FAST, and ...
  31. [31]
    Trauma severity scores | Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology
    Combined scoresTRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score). General description: It was developed when Champion et al. observed that the anatomical description ...
  32. [32]
    The new trauma score (NTS): a modification of the revised ... - NIH
    Jul 3, 2017 · In the 30 years since Champion et al. introduced the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), it has been widely used to assess prognosis in trauma patients.Missing: paper | Show results with:paper
  33. [33]
    Is the revised trauma score still useful? - PubMed
    The revised trauma score (RTS) has been embraced by the trauma community worldwide. Although originally developed as a triage tool, the use of the RTS has ...
  34. [34]
    Evaluation of the revised trauma and injury severity scores in elderly ...
    We sought to determine the accuracy of the injury severity score (ISS) and the revised trauma score (RTS) in predicting mortality and hospital length of stay ( ...
  35. [35]
    Comparison of Trauma Scoring Systems for Predicting Mortality in ...
    Jun 19, 2025 · The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) is a physiological scoring system that utilizes easily measurable parameters such as the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ...
  36. [36]
    Which curve is better? A comparative analysis of trauma scoring ...
    Nov 22, 2023 · 9 Another score that factors anatomic injuries within its calculation is the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), introduced in 1981.10 ...Methodology · Study Participants And Data... · Results
  37. [37]
    Comparison of Trauma Severity Scores (ISS, NISS, RTS ... - PubMed
    The best performing score in determining mortality was TRISS (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.93, sensitivity 97.1% and specificity 76.7%). This was followed by ...
  38. [38]
    Usability verification of the Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS ...
    Nov 3, 2017 · The magnitude of the disturbance in each parameter is scored from 0 to 4. The RTS score ranges from 0 to 7.8408 and is calculated as follows:.
  39. [39]