PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Mary Jones

Publications and source records attributed to J Mary Jones.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Scoring of anatomic injury after trauma: AIS 98 versus AIS 90--do the changes affect overall severity assessment?

BACKGROUND: Although several changes were implemented in the 1998 update of the abbreviated injury scale (AIS 98) versus the previous AIS 90, both are still used worldwide for coding of anatomic injury in trauma. This could possibly invalidate comparisons between systems using different AIS versions. Our aim was to evaluate whether the use of different coding dictionaries affected estimation of Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and probability of survival (Ps) according to TRISS in a hospital-based trauma registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective study including 1654 patients from Ulleval University Hospital, a Norwegian trauma referral centre, patients were coded according to both AIS 98 and AIS 90. Agreement between the classifications of ISS, NISS and Ps according to TRISS methodology was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% CI. RESULTS: ISS changed for 378 of 1654 patients analysed (22.9%). One hundred and forty seven (8.9%) were coded differently due to different injury descriptions and 369 patients (22.3%) had a change in ISS value in one or more regions due to the different scoring algorithm for skin injuries introduced in AIS 98. This gave a minimal change in mean ISS (14.74 versus 14.54). An ICC value of 0.997 (95% CI 0.9968-0.9974) for ISS indicates excellent agreement between the scoring systems. There were no significant changes in NISS and Ps. CONCLUSIONS: There was excellent agreement for the overall population between ISS, NISS and Ps values obtained using AIS 90 and AIS 98 for injury coding. Injury descriptions for hypothermia were re-introduced in the recently published AIS 2005. We support this change as coding differences due to hypothermia were encountered in 4.3% of patients in the present study.

Abbreviated Injury Scale↗

Validity of nutritional screening and assessment tools.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to address the design and analysis of validity studies for evaluating the performance of a nutritional screening or assessment tool. METHODS: Statistical aspects of validity are discussed with the non-statistician in mind. Particular emphasis is placed on construct and criterion validity. Design issues are considered in relation to numbers of subjects and assessments. Appropriate methods of analysis are considered, as is interpretation of results. Practical suggestions regarding the implementation of validity studies in the field of nutrition risk assessment are proposed. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for the standardization of the design, analysis, and publication of results are presented.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗

Reliability of nutritional screening and assessment tools.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to address the design and analysis of studies for evaluating the reliability of a nutritional screening or assessment tool. METHODS: Statistical aspects of reliability are discussed with the non-statistician in mind. Design issues are considered in relation to numbers of raters and subjects and to the appropriateness of raters. The analysis of data to obtain a measure of reliability and its confidence interval is illustrated with examples. Practical suggestions regarding the implementation of reliability studies in the field of nutritional risk assessment are proposed. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for the standardization of the design, analysis, and publication of results are presented.

Confidence Intervals↗

Development of a nutritional screening or assessment tool using a multivariate technique.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this paper are to consider the important design stages required to develop a nutritional screening or assessment tool and to present an analysis for identifying important risk factors associated with malnutrition. METHODS: Design issues, such as sample selection and sample size, are addressed in relation to the study protocol. The various steps involved in tool development are outlined. Appropriate univariate and multivariate techniques are discussed with the non-statistician in mind. Emphasis is placed on the linear logistic regression method. Practical suggestions relating to the development of a tool for nutritional risk assessment are proposed, and methodology is illustrated with data from a published study. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for the standardization of the design, analyses, and publication of results are presented.

Analysis of Variance↗

The methodology of nutritional screening and assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to give a critical appraisal of the methodology of nutritional screening and assessment tools. METHODS: A literature search identified 44 tools. Each tool was assessed in relation to details of its application, method of derivation and evaluation of its performance. RESULTS: The findings indicate that tools were published with insufficient details regarding their intended use and method of derivation, and with an inadequate assessment of their effectiveness. An appraisal of these features judged that no one tool satisfied a set of criteria regarding scientific merit. CONCLUSION: There is thus a need to ensure that nutritional screening and assessment tools are developed using procedures based on good design and sound statistical practice. This paper suggests that a unified approach using multivariate techniques could make a significant contribution to this process.

Humans↗