ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT06709547Updated Sep 17, 2026

Mortality Prediction Using Trauma Scores

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

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Nov 2025; still recruiting 11 months later.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
150
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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.

Read the detailed description

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Trauma, Multiple

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • ISS
  • NISS
  • RTS
  • TISS
03

In context

Multiple Trauma

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 →

Lead sponsor

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.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

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.

Inclusion criteria

  • Trauma patients admitted to the emergency room (ER).
  • Documented injury data sufficient to calculate both the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and the Injury Severity Score (ISS).
  • Trauma scores (ISS, NISS, Revised Trauma Score [RTS], and Trauma and Injury Severity Score [TRISS]) calculated within 12 hour of arrival to ensure timely predictions.
  • provided by the patient or a legal guardian in cases of incapacity.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Under 18 years of age and pregnant women, due to differences in trauma management and scoring applicability.
  • Non-trauma cases, including patients with terminal illnesses or severe cognitive impairments, to maintain focus on trauma outcomes.
  • Incomplete trauma scoring, missing or incomplete medical records, and
  • patients not treated in the trauma or emergency department.
  • Patients who refuse participation or withdraw consent to ensure ethical participation.
  • Transferred patients and those enrolled in other research studies that could interfere with trauma scoring.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

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.

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.

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
150 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. In hospital mortality

    Mortality (death) during hospitalization

    Time frame: In-Hospital Phase (average of 7 days through discharge)

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

Secondary outcomes

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • College of Medicine - Al-Nahrain University
    Baghdad, Iraq
    Recruiting
    • · Contactdr.rawaaasattar@nahrainuniv.edu.iq
    • Abdulillah R. Khamees · Principal investigator
    • Abdelfattah A. Gomaa, M.B.CH.B · Sub investigator
    • Ali Babiker Hassan, Student · Sub investigator
    • Lubna R. Noori, M.B.CH.B · Sub investigator
    • Moamel Jaafar Ali, M.B.CH.B · Sub investigator
    • Abdullah Nazar Almufti, M.B.CH.B · Sub investigator
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Senkowski CK, McKenney MG. Trauma scoring systems: a review. J Am Coll Surg. 1999 Nov;189(5):491-503. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(99)00190-8. No abstract available. PubMed 10549738 ↗
  • Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flanagan ME. A revision of the Trauma Score. J Trauma. 1989 May;29(5):623-9. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198905000-00017. PubMed 2657085 ↗
  • Baker SP, O'Neill B, Haddon W Jr, Long WB. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma. 1974 Mar;14(3):187-96. No abstract available. PubMed 4814394 ↗
  • Hoke MH, Usul E, Ozkan S. Comparison of Trauma Severity Scores (ISS, NISS, RTS, BIG Score, and TRISS) in Multiple Trauma Patients. J Trauma Nurs. 2021 Apr-Jun 01;28(2):100-106. doi: 10.1097/JTN.0000000000000567. PubMed 33667204 ↗
  • Boyd CR, Tolson MA, Copes WS. Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma. 1987 Apr;27(4):370-8. PubMed 3106646 ↗
  • Osler T, Baker SP, Long W. A modification of the injury severity score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. J Trauma. 1997 Dec;43(6):922-5; discussion 925-6. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199712000-00009. PubMed 9420106 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

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.

Registered
Nov 23, 2024
First posted
Nov 29, 2024
StartActual
Nov 28, 2025
Primary completionEst.
Dec 1, 2027
CompletionEst.
Dec 15, 2027
Last update
Sep 17, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 17, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06709547
Lead sponsor
Al-Nahrain University
Responsible party
Abdulillah R. Khamees (Principal Investigator, Al-Nahrain University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 29, 2024
Start date
Nov 28, 2025
Primary completion
Dec 1, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 15, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 17, 2026

Study contacts

Abdulillh R. Khamees
Contact
allaabed987@ced.nahrainuniv.edu.iq
+9647838571013

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions 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.

Start the discussion