Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of quality assessment

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%
  1. NA, not applicable; AUROC, area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve; TRISS, Trauma and Injury Severity Score; ICISS, International Classification of Diseases-based.