An observational study in Trauma, Multiple, sponsored by Al-Nahrain University. Recruiting at 1 site in Iraq. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-17.
Sponsored by Al-Nahrain University · Observational
The goal of this prospective cohort study is to compare the predictive utility of the Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in determining mortality outcomes among trauma patients admitted to the trauma and emergency department at Kadhimiya Educational Hospital in Baghdad.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Which trauma scoring system provides the most accurate prediction of mortality? Are there specific trauma patient subgroups where one scoring system outperforms the others?
Participants will:
Be assessed using all four trauma scoring systems (ISS, NISS, RTS, and TRISS) upon admission to the trauma and emergency department.
Have their clinical outcomes, including mortality, length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and discharge status, monitored throughout their hospital stay to evaluate the accuracy and utility of each scoring system in predicting patient outcomes.
Trauma remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with millions of individuals affected annually. The severity of trauma injuries can vary widely, ranging from minor to life-threatening, and effective management often hinges on the ability to quickly assess the severity of injury and predict patient outcomes, including mortality. Accurate and timely prognostication is essential for prioritizing care, guiding treatment decisions, and allocating resources in trauma care settings. Trauma severity scoring systems have been developed to assist in these assessments, with the most commonly used being the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and the Trauma and Injury.
Injury Severity Score (ISS) The Injury Severity Score (ISS) was developed in the 1970s as a way to quantify the severity of trauma-related injuries based on anatomic regions of injury. The ISS assigns scores to the most severe injuries in six body regions, and the sum of the squares of the highest AIS (abbreviated Injury Score) from each of the three most severely injured regions determines the total score. ISS is widely used for risk stratification in trauma patients and has been validated as a predictor of mortality in various populations.
New Injury Severity Score (NISS) The New Injury Severity Score (NISS), introduced in the 1990s, improves upon the ISS by utilizing the three most severe injuries across any body region rather than restricting it to the highest injuries from three predefined regions. Research has shown that NISS is more predictive of mortality than ISS, particularly in patients with polytrauma or multiple severe injuries across different body regions. Despite its advantages, Revised Trauma Score (RTS) The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) is a physiological scoring system based on three clinical parameters: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and respiratory rate (RR). Unlike ISS and NISS, RTS focuses on the immediate physiological status of the patient rather than the anatomical severity of the injuries. The RTS has been widely used in trauma centers, especially for triage purposes, as it can be quickly assessed in the pre-hospital setting. However, RTS does not account for the type, distribution, or severity of injuries, which can limit its ability to predict mortality in more complex trauma cases.
Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) combines the ISS (or NISS), the RTS, and the patient's age to estimate the probability of survival. TRISS has been widely validated and used in trauma registries as a comprehensive scoring system, considering both injury severity and physiological status. It has been shown to predict trauma-related mortality with good accuracy and is often used to assess trauma system performance and to guide clinical decision-making. However, TRISS may be less accurate in certain populations, such as older adults or those with significant comorbidities, as it primarily relies on injury-related factors and may not fully capture the complex interplay of clinical variables affecting outcomes.
Need for Comparative Studies While individual trauma scoring systems have demonstrated utility in predicting mortality, no single scoring system is universally superior. In clinical practice, there is a need to evaluate and compare these scoring systems across different populations and settings, particularly to determine which system is most reliable in predicting mortality for various trauma mechanisms.
injury patterns, and patient characteristics. Some studies have suggested that combining these systems may improve predictive accuracy, but evidence supporting the superiority of one over the others is inconclusive.
Additionally, while many studies have focused on the predictive validity of these scores in large datasets, fewer studies have compared them head-to-head within the same cohort of trauma patients. This gap in the literature necessitates a comprehensive, cohort-based study that directly compares the performance of the ISS, NISS, RTS, and TRISS for predicting mortality across a broad spectrum of trauma patients.
139 studies on the registry are indexed under Multiple Trauma; 32 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 150 is below the median of 200 across 84 observational studies indexed under Multiple Trauma.
Browse Multiple Trauma studies →Al-Nahrain University is the lead sponsor of 26 studies on the registry; 20 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
The study population consists of adult trauma patients (≥18 years) presenting to the trauma and emergency department at Kadhimiya Educational Hospital in Baghdad. It includes individuals with acute injuries, such as blunt or penetrating trauma, who require trauma severity scoring. Data will be gathered through standardized clinical assessments and trauma scoring within the emergency department setting, ensuring a representative sample of the trauma population at the hospital.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
In hospital mortality
Mortality (death) during hospitalization
Time frame: In-Hospital Phase (average of 7 days through discharge)
Accuracy Assessment of Injury Severity Score (ISS)
Range: 0 to 75 Higher values indicate worse outcomes, reflecting greater injury severity.
Time frame: the first 12 hours after ER admission
Accuracy Assessment of New Injury Severity Score (NISS)
Range: 0 to 75. Higher values indicate worse outcomes, reflecting greater injury severity.
Time frame: the first 12 hours after ER admission
Accuracy Assessment of Trauma Injury Severity Score (TISS)
Range: 0 (represents a 0% probability of survival) to 1 (represents a 100% probability of survival), with higher scores indicating greater trauma severity.
Time frame: the first 12 hours after ER admission
Accuracy Assessment of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS)
The total RTS score ranges from 0 to approximately 12, with lower scores indicating more severe injuries and a higher risk of mortality.
Time frame: the first 12 hours after ER admission
Length of Hospitalization
The total duration of a patient's stay in the hospital, measured from the date of admission to the date of discharge. This includes all days spent in general wards, intensive care units (ICU), and other hospital departments as part of their treatment course.
Time frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Number of Participants Requiring ICU Admission
The requirement for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) is determined by the presence of severe clinical deterioration, significant complications, or the need for advanced monitoring and life-support measures.
Time frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Number of Participants Requiring Surgical Intervention
need for surgical intervention during a trauma patient's hospital stay.
Time frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Plan to share: No
Started Nov 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Dec 2027, 24 months after the start.
Of 30 observational studies under Multiple Trauma, half reached primary completion within 22 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 18 and three quarters within 57. This study's planned 24 months is close to that.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Al-Nahrain University