From: Systematic review of predictive performance of injury severity scoring tools
Internal validity | |||
Q1 | Were selection criteria clearly described? | ||
 | Yes | 61 | 95.3% |
 | No | 3 | 4.7% |
Q2 | Were any quality assurance measures for managing and/or collecting data described? | ||
 | Yes | 24 | 37.5% |
 | No | 40 | 62.5% |
Q3 | Were missing data adequately managed? | ||
 | Yes | 38 | 59.4% |
 | No | 28 | 43.8% |
 | Two studies were double-counted because a part of variable were excluded and the rest of variables were estimated. | ||
Q4 | Was the length of follow-up described? | ||
 | Yes | 35 | 54.7% |
 | No | 29 | 45.3% |
Q5 | Was the version of the reference code systems used described? | ||
 | Yes | 24 | 37.5% |
 | No | 40 | 62.5% |
Q6 | Was the derivation of coefficients of TRISS or weights of ICISS described? | ||
 | Yes | 41 | 34.5% |
 | No | 11 | 9.2% |
 | NA | 14 | 11.8% |
 | Two studies described the derivation of only a part of scores studied. | ||
Q7 | Were the new coefficients or weights validated? | ||
 | Yes | 25 | 89.3% |
 | No | 3 | 10.7% |
External validity | |||
Q8 | Was the description of the study population reported? | ||
 | Yes | 62 | 96.9% |
 | No | 2 | 3.1% |
Q9 | Was the study conducted using multi-institutional population? | ||
 | Yes | 28 | 51.9% |
 | No | 36 | 48.1% |
Q10 | Was the precision of AUROC, such as standard error, reported? | ||
 | Yes | 31 | 48.4% |
 | No | 33 | 51.6% |