跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT07270354
NCT07270354尚未招募不适用

STUMBL (Study of the Management of Blunt Chest Wall Trauma) vs TTSS (Thoracic Trauma Severity Score) in Prediction of Morbidity and Mortality Rate of Blunt Chest Trauma

Assiut University0 个研究点目标入组 124 人开始时间: 2025年12月30日最近更新:

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
尚未招募
入组人数
124
主要终点
To compare the predictive accuracy of the STUMBL score and TTSS in forecasting morbidity and mortality in patients with blunt chest trauma

研究概览

简要总结

This study aim to compare the effectiveness of the STUMBL Score and the Thoracic Trauma Severity Score (TTSS) in predicting morbidity and mortality in patients with blunt chest wall trauma, and to evaluate which scoring system provides greater clinical utility for early risk stratification and management decisions.

详细描述

Blunt chest wall trauma poses a clinical challenge due to its substantial contribution to morbidity and mortality, particularly following falls and vehicular accidents. Early identification of patients at high risk of complications is critical yet difficult, as delayed respiratory issues often escape initial detection. Traditional trauma scoring systems (e.g. ISS, AIS) lack specificity for isolated thoracic injury, creating a niche for more focused prognostic tools.

Two promising models have emerged: the STUMBL Score-based on age, number of rib fractures, chronic lung disease, pre-injury anticoagulant use, and oxygen saturation-is explicitly designed for blunt chest trauma prognosis. Studies report strong discriminatory performance, with development-phase c-index up to 0.96 . External validations vary: one UK cohort showed STUMBL ≥ 11 had a sensitivity of 79%, specificity of 78%, and AUC of 0.84-comparable to clinician judgment ; Italian data demonstrated excellent discrimination (C-index ~0.90) and calibration .

The Thoracic Trauma Severity Score (TTSS), initially validated in polytrauma ICU patients, yields moderate to good discrimination (c-indices 0.72-0.85) across validation studies .

Though these scores show promise, high methodological bias and limited external validations temper their widespread adoption . A direct, comparative analysis of STUMBL and TTSS within a well-defined patient cohort is thus needed.

研究设计

研究类型
Observational
观察模型
Cohort
时间视角
Prospective

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Adult patients (≥18 years) presenting with blunt chest trauma.
  • Patients who have given written informed consent to participate in the study

排除标准

  • Penetrating chest injuries
  • Pediatric patients (<18 years)
  • Patients with incomplete records or who decline consent
  • Pregnant women
  • Disturbed conscious patients
  • Mechanically ventilated patients
  • Polytrauma patients

结局指标

主要结局

To compare the predictive accuracy of the STUMBL score and TTSS in forecasting morbidity and mortality in patients with blunt chest trauma

时间窗: 14 day duration follow-up after ED admission

次要结局

  • Easy of use of STUMBL score and TTSS score in emergency clinical settings(14 day duration follow-up after ED admission)
  • To correlate each score with specific outcomes such as pneumonia, need for mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality(14 day duration follow-up after ED admission)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Principal Investigator
主要研究者

Mohamed Emad Ahmed Swefy

Emergency medicine resident at Assiut University

Assiut University

相似试验