TraumaNTSNCT06732752
Evaluating the New Trauma Score (NTS) for Improved Mortality Prediction
An observational study of Trauma, run by Al-Nahrain University at 1 site in Iraq.
Trial summary
The goal of this prospective cohort study is to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the New Trauma Score (NTS), a modification of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), in determining mortality outcomes among trauma patients admitted to the emergency department at Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital, Iraq. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Trauma
- How many people
- 177 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIraq
- Study dates
- 28 Apr 2025to 20 Jun 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: consist of trauma patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) of Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital over the study period. This will include both male and female patients of various age groups who present with trauma-related injuries.
Who may be able to join
- All trauma patients (including blunt, penetrating, and traumatic brain injury) admitted to the emergency department.
- Patients presenting with varying degrees of trauma (mild to severe).
- Patients (or their legal representatives) who provide informed consent to participate in the study.
- Trauma patients admitted to the emergency department.
- Patients who are assessed using both the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and the New Trauma Score (NTS) upon admission to the emergency department.
Who cannot join
- Patients under 18 years old.
- Pregnant women, due to the potential complications and challenges in trauma assessment.
- Patients who refuse to give consent to participate in the study or whose legal guardians refuse on their behalf.
- Trauma patients transferred from other hospitals.
- Patients with incomplete medical records or missing key data required for trauma score calculation.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Iraq1 site
College of Medicine - Al-Nahrain University
Baghdad
Abdul-Ilah R. Khamis, +9647838571013, allaabed987@ced.nahrainuniv.edu.iq
Mohammed A. Hamdawi, Lecturer of general surgery, 009647801604775, mohammedhamdawi@nahrainuniv.edu.iq
About this study
Official title: Prospective Validation of the New Trauma Score (NTS) for Superior Prediction of Mortality Compared to the Revised Trauma Score
The goal of this prospective cohort study is to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the New Trauma Score (NTS), a modification of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), in determining mortality outcomes among trauma patients admitted to the emergency department at Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital, Iraq.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Read more
Does the NTS provide a more accurate prediction of mortality than the RTS? Are there specific subgroups of trauma patients where the NTS demonstrates superior predictive utility compared to the RTS?
Participants will:
Be assessed using both the NTS and RTS upon admission to the emergency department.
Have their clinical outcomes, including mortality, tracked throughout their hospital stay.
Read the detailed description
Trauma is increasingly being a cause of mortality globally. Every year, over 45 million people suffer moderate to severe disability as a result of trauma, making them the leading cause of mortality among persons aged 18 to 29. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), road traffic injuries caused 1.25 million deaths in 2014, and trauma is predicted to become the third biggest cause of disability globally by 2030. Accurate management and time are vital factors in the treatment of traumatic patients and play a main role in determining the outcome of trauma patients. Patients with serious traumatic injuries have a significantly lower likelihood of mortality or morbidity when treated at a designated trauma center.
Trauma scoring systems are simple to inform physicians of the severity of trauma in patients and help them decide the course of trauma management. They can be used in the field to determine whether to send a patient to a trauma center before they arrive at the hospital. When a trauma patient has just arrived at the emergency department (ED), they might also be utilized for clinical decision-making. Trauma scoring systems can be used in the emergency department to prepare the patient for surgery, to call on medical staff for trauma support, and to tell the patient's family of the severity of the patient's condition at an early stage. A scoring system must be accurate, reliable, and specific to predict trauma-related death.
As a result, trauma scores could be physiological, which detail changes in vital signs and state of awareness, such as the New Trauma Score (NTS) and Revised Trauma Score (RTS), which enable early clinical assessment of patients at admission. Anatomical, which describes the extent and number of anatomical lesions, such as the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS), allowing for later clinical assessment, including imaging after initial patient stabilization, surgery, and autopsy. combined, such as Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and KTS, which incorporate RTS and ISS. The combined trauma ratings are especially useful in assessing the prognosis after trauma. Physiological NTS and combined KTS were developed primarily for their applicability in resource-constrained environments where advanced initial evaluation for anatomical lesions using computerized tomographic (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may not be available.
The New Trauma Score (NTS) is gaining popularity as an improved measure for predicting trauma mortality. It was created as a modification of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) to enhance accuracy and usability. Compared to RTS, NTS includes extra measures such as oxygen saturation (SpO2) instead of respiratory rate, uses the actual Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score rather than coded values, and revise the systolic blood pressure interval used for the code value.These changes make the score more dynamic and suitable for a wider range of trauma settings.
Recent studies have validated the effectiveness of NTS. For instance, it demonstrated superior sensitivity in predicting mortality compared to the Kampala Trauma Score II (KTS II), though KTS II showed slightly higher specificity. NTS also performed well against other tools like MGAP and GAP, highlighting its balance between simplicity and precision. These features make it particularly useful in prehospital and emergency department triage systems, where rapid and reliable decisions are critical for patient outcomes.
- Conditions
- Trauma
- Keywords
- RTS
- Medical subject headings
- Wounds and Injuries
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
In hospital mortality
Mortality (death) during hospitalization
Measured: In-Hospital Phase (average of 7 days through discharge); Post-Discharge Follow-Up: Day 7, Day 30
Accuracy Assessment of the New Trauma Score (NTS)
The New Trauma Score (NTS) ranges from 3 to 23. Higher scores indicate better physiological status and lower mortality risk.
Measured: the first 6 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.
Measured: the first 6 hours after ER admission
Secondary outcomes (3)
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.
Measured: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Need for 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.
Measured: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Need for Surgical Intervention
need for surgical intervention during a trauma patient's hospital stay.
Measured: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Dec 2024
- Study start28 Apr 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion10 Jun 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion20 Jun 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for TraumaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 177 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Al-Nahrain University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Abdul-Ilah R. Khamis, Al-Nahrain University
- Investigators
- Mohammad A. Hamdawi, Lecturer of general surgery, Study director, College Of Medicine - Nahrain University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06732752
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UNCOMIRB20241210A
- Other IDs
- 009
- Acronym
- NTS
- Status last verified
- Mar 2025
- First submitted
- 10 Dec 2024
- Last updated
- 18 Mar 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Manoochehry S, Vafabin M, Bitaraf S, Amiri A. A Comparison between the Ability of Revised Trauma Score and Kampala Trauma Score in Predicting Mortality; a Meta-Analysis. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 15;7(1):e6. eCollection 2019 Winter.
PubMed 30847441Indurkar SK Sr, Ghormade PS, Akhade S, Sarma B. Use of the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) as a Predictor of Patient Outcome in Cases of Trauma Presenting in the Trauma and Emergency Department of a Tertiary Care Institute. Cureus. 2023 Jun 14;15(6):e40410. doi: 10.7759/cureus.40410. eCollection 2023 Jun.
PubMed 37456404Mehmood A, Rowther AA, Kobusingye O, Ssenyonjo H, Zia N, Hyder AA. Delays in emergency department intervention for patients with traumatic brain injury in Uganda. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2021 Aug 26;6(1):e000674. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2021-000674. eCollection 2021.
PubMed 34527810MacKenzie EJ, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, Nathens AB, Frey KP, Egleston BL, Salkever DS, Scharfstein DO. A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jan 26;354(4):366-78. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa052049.
PubMed 16436768Nirula R, Maier R, Moore E, Sperry J, Gentilello L. Scoop and run to the trauma center or stay and play at the local hospital: hospital transfer's effect on mortality. J Trauma. 2010 Sep;69(3):595-9; discussion 599-601. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181ee6e32.
PubMed 20838131Bachani AM, Peden M, Gururaj G, Norton R, Hyder AA. Road Traffic Injuries. In: Mock CN, Nugent R, Kobusingye O, Smith KR, editors. Injury Prevention and Environmental Health. 3rd edition. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2017 Oct 27. Chapter 3. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525212/
PubMed 30212112Byass P, de Courten M, Graham WJ, Laflamme L, McCaw-Binns A, Sankoh OA, Tollman SM, Zaba B. Reflections on the global burden of disease 2010 estimates. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001477. Epub 2013 Jul 2.
PubMed 23843748van Breugel JMM, Niemeyer MJS, Houwert RM, Groenwold RHH, Leenen LPH, van Wessem KJP. Global changes in mortality rates in polytrauma patients admitted to the ICU-a systematic review. World J Emerg Surg. 2020 Sep 30;15(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s13017-020-00330-3.
PubMed 32998744Damulira J, Muhumuza J, Kabuye U, Ssebaggala G, Wilson ML, Barnighausen T, Lule H. New Trauma Score versus Kampala Trauma Score II in predicting mortality following road traffic crash: a prospective multi-center cohort study. BMC Emerg Med. 2024 Jul 29;24(1):130. doi: 10.1186/s12873-024-01048-0.
PubMed 39075406Farzan N, Foroghi Ghomi SY, Mohammadi AR. A retrospective study on evaluating GAP, MGAP, RTS and ISS trauma scoring system for the prediction of mortality among multiple trauma patients. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022 Mar 28;76:103536. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103536. eCollection 2022 Apr.
PubMed 35495411Chawda MN, Hildebrand F, Pape HC, Giannoudis PV. Predicting outcome after multiple trauma: which scoring system? Injury. 2004 Apr;35(4):347-58. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(03)00140-2.
PubMed 15037369Jeong JH, Park YJ, Kim DH, Kim TY, Kang C, Lee SH, Lee SB, Kim SC, Lim D. The new trauma score (NTS): a modification of the revised trauma score for better trauma mortality prediction. BMC Surg. 2017 Jul 3;17(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12893-017-0272-4.
PubMed 28673278
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Mar 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Prospective Validation of the New Trauma Score (NTS) for Superior Prediction of Mortality Compared to the Revised Trauma Score
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06732752
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- NTS / UNCOMIRB20241210A
- Conditions
- Trauma
- Keywords
- RTS
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 177 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Al-Nahrain UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 28 Apr 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 10 Jun 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 20 Jun 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this prospective cohort study is to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the New Trauma Score (NTS), a modification of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), in determining mortality outcomes among trauma patients admitted to the emergency department at Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital, Iraq.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Does the NTS provide a more accurate prediction of mortality than the RTS? Are there specific subgroups of trauma patients where the NTS demonstrates superior predictive utility compared to the RTS?
Participants will:
Be assessed using both the NTS and RTS upon admission to the emergency department.
Have their clinical outcomes, including mortality, tracked throughout their hospital stay.
Detailed description
Trauma is increasingly being a cause of mortality globally. Every year, over 45 million people suffer moderate to severe disability as a result of trauma, making them the leading cause of mortality among persons aged 18 to 29. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), road traffic injuries caused 1.25 million deaths in 2014, and trauma is predicted to become the third biggest cause of disability globally by 2030. Accurate management and time are vital factors in the treatment of traumatic patients and play a main role in determining the outcome of trauma patients. Patients with serious traumatic injuries have a significantly lower likelihood of mortality or morbidity when treated at a designated trauma center.
Trauma scoring systems are simple to inform physicians of the severity of trauma in patients and help them decide the course of trauma management. They can be used in the field to determine whether to send a patient to a trauma center before they arrive at the hospital. When a trauma patient has just arrived at the emergency department (ED), they might also be utilized for clinical decision-making. Trauma scoring systems can be used in the emergency department to prepare the patient for surgery, to call on medical staff for trauma support, and to tell the patient's family of the severity of the patient's condition at an early stage. A scoring system must be accurate, reliable, and specific to predict trauma-related death.
As a result, trauma scores could be physiological, which detail changes in vital signs and state of awareness, such as the New Trauma Score (NTS) and Revised Trauma Score (RTS), which enable early clinical assessment of patients at admission. Anatomical, which describes the extent and number of anatomical lesions, such as the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS), allowing for later clinical assessment, including imaging after initial patient stabilization, surgery, and autopsy. combined, such as Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and KTS, which incorporate RTS and ISS. The combined trauma ratings are especially useful in assessing the prognosis after trauma. Physiological NTS and combined KTS were developed primarily for their applicability in resource-constrained environments where advanced initial evaluation for anatomical lesions using computerized tomographic (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may not be available.
The New Trauma Score (NTS) is gaining popularity as an improved measure for predicting trauma mortality. It was created as a modification of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) to enhance accuracy and usability. Compared to RTS, NTS includes extra measures such as oxygen saturation (SpO2) instead of respiratory rate, uses the actual Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score rather than coded values, and revise the systolic blood pressure interval used for the code value.These changes make the score more dynamic and suitable for a wider range of trauma settings.
Recent studies have validated the effectiveness of NTS. For instance, it demonstrated superior sensitivity in predicting mortality compared to the Kampala Trauma Score II (KTS II), though KTS II showed slightly higher specificity. NTS also performed well against other tools like MGAP and GAP, highlighting its balance between simplicity and precision. These features make it particularly useful in prehospital and emergency department triage systems, where rapid and reliable decisions are critical for patient outcomes.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- consist of trauma patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) of Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital over the study period. This will include both male and female patients of various age groups who present with trauma-related injuries.
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- All trauma patients (including blunt, penetrating, and traumatic brain injury) admitted to the emergency department.
- Patients presenting with varying degrees of trauma (mild to severe).
- Patients (or their legal representatives) who provide informed consent to participate in the study.
- Trauma patients admitted to the emergency department.
- Patients who are assessed using both the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and the New Trauma Score (NTS) upon admission to the emergency department.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients under 18 years old.
- Pregnant women, due to the potential complications and challenges in trauma assessment.
- Patients who refuse to give consent to participate in the study or whose legal guardians refuse on their behalf.
- Trauma patients transferred from other hospitals.
- Patients with incomplete medical records or missing key data required for trauma score calculation.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
In hospital mortality
Time frame: In-Hospital Phase (average of 7 days through discharge); Post-Discharge Follow-Up: Day 7, Day 30
Mortality (death) during hospitalization
Accuracy Assessment of the New Trauma Score (NTS)
Time frame: the first 6 hours after ER admission
The New Trauma Score (NTS) ranges from 3 to 23. Higher scores indicate better physiological status and lower mortality risk.
Accuracy Assessment of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS)
Time frame: the first 6 hours after ER admission
The total RTS score ranges from 0 to approximately 12, with lower scores indicating more severe injuries and a higher risk of mortality.
3 secondary outcomes
Length of Hospitalization
Time frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Need for ICU Admission
Time frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Need for Surgical Intervention
Time frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Mar 2025.
- Background: PubMed 30847441Manoochehry S, Vafabin M, Bitaraf S, Amiri A. A Comparison between the Ability of Revised Trauma Score and Kampala Trauma Score in Predicting Mortality; a Meta-Analysis. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 15;7(1):e6. eCollection 2019 Winter.
- Background: PubMed 37456404Indurkar SK Sr, Ghormade PS, Akhade S, Sarma B. Use of the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) as a Predictor of Patient Outcome in Cases of Trauma Presenting in the Trauma and Emergency Department of a Tertiary Care Institute. Cureus. 2023 Jun 14;15(6):e40410. doi: 10.7759/cureus.40410. eCollection 2023 Jun.
- Background: PubMed 34527810Mehmood A, Rowther AA, Kobusingye O, Ssenyonjo H, Zia N, Hyder AA. Delays in emergency department intervention for patients with traumatic brain injury in Uganda. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2021 Aug 26;6(1):e000674. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2021-000674. eCollection 2021.
- Background: PubMed 16436768MacKenzie EJ, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, Nathens AB, Frey KP, Egleston BL, Salkever DS, Scharfstein DO. A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jan 26;354(4):366-78. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa052049.
- Background: PubMed 20838131Nirula R, Maier R, Moore E, Sperry J, Gentilello L. Scoop and run to the trauma center or stay and play at the local hospital: hospital transfer's effect on mortality. J Trauma. 2010 Sep;69(3):595-9; discussion 599-601. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181ee6e32.
- Background: PubMed 30212112Bachani AM, Peden M, Gururaj G, Norton R, Hyder AA. Road Traffic Injuries. In: Mock CN, Nugent R, Kobusingye O, Smith KR, editors. Injury Prevention and Environmental Health. 3rd edition. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2017 Oct 27. Chapter 3. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525212/
- Background: PubMed 23843748Byass P, de Courten M, Graham WJ, Laflamme L, McCaw-Binns A, Sankoh OA, Tollman SM, Zaba B. Reflections on the global burden of disease 2010 estimates. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001477. Epub 2013 Jul 2.
- Background: PubMed 32998744van Breugel JMM, Niemeyer MJS, Houwert RM, Groenwold RHH, Leenen LPH, van Wessem KJP. Global changes in mortality rates in polytrauma patients admitted to the ICU-a systematic review. World J Emerg Surg. 2020 Sep 30;15(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s13017-020-00330-3.
- Results publication: PubMed 39075406Damulira J, Muhumuza J, Kabuye U, Ssebaggala G, Wilson ML, Barnighausen T, Lule H. New Trauma Score versus Kampala Trauma Score II in predicting mortality following road traffic crash: a prospective multi-center cohort study. BMC Emerg Med. 2024 Jul 29;24(1):130. doi: 10.1186/s12873-024-01048-0.
- Results publication: PubMed 35495411Farzan N, Foroghi Ghomi SY, Mohammadi AR. A retrospective study on evaluating GAP, MGAP, RTS and ISS trauma scoring system for the prediction of mortality among multiple trauma patients. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022 Mar 28;76:103536. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103536. eCollection 2022 Apr.
- Results publication: PubMed 15037369Chawda MN, Hildebrand F, Pape HC, Giannoudis PV. Predicting outcome after multiple trauma: which scoring system? Injury. 2004 Apr;35(4):347-58. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(03)00140-2.
- Results publication: PubMed 28673278Jeong JH, Park YJ, Kim DH, Kim TY, Kang C, Lee SH, Lee SB, Kim SC, Lim D. The new trauma score (NTS): a modification of the revised trauma score for better trauma mortality prediction. BMC Surg. 2017 Jul 3;17(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12893-017-0272-4.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Trauma
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Arterial Stiffness During Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Abdominal Wall Wounds
Postoperative Abdominal Wall Wound Complications, Surgical Wound Infection
RecruitingPhase 4
Effect of a Furosemide Stress Test-Guided Strategy on Liberation From Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury
Acute Kidney Injury
Recruiting
Implant for Walking After Incomplete SCI
Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), Gait
Recruiting
Lateral Ankle Treatment
Avulsion Fracture
Not yet recruiting
Magnesium Alloy Scaffold With Controlled Degradation for Periarticular Bone Defects
Periarticular Bone Defect, Proximal Humerus Fracture
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Mohammad A. Hamdawi, Lecturer of general surgery study director
College Of Medicine - Nahrain University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Trauma, run by Al-Nahrain University at 1 site in Iraq.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Mar 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Iraq. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Abdul-Ilah R. Khamis (+9647838571013, allaabed987@ced.nahrainuniv.edu.iq), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
In hospital mortality (time frame: In-Hospital Phase (average of 7 days through discharge); Post-Discharge Follow-Up: Day 7, Day 30). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06732752, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Mar 2025.