TraumaMGAP-GAPNCT06732791
Comparative Analysis of MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores in Predicting Outcomes for Multiple Trauma Patients
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 compare the predictive accuracy of the MGAP and GAP trauma scores in determining the prognosis of multiple trauma patients admitted to the emergency department at Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital, Iraq. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 16 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Trauma
- How many people
- 522 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIraq
- Study dates
- 20 Jan 2025to 20 Mar 2027
- 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 16 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study will include patients presenting with multiple trauma to the Trauma and Emergency Department at Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital, Iraq. This population comprises patients who have sustained injuries affecting multiple body regions and require urgent medical evaluation and management
Who may be able to join
- Aged 16 years or older.
- Patients presenting with multiple trauma (Multiple trauma is defined as injuries involving two or more body regions or organ systems that might need coordinated multidisciplinary management).
- Patients presenting to the emergency department within 6 hours of sustaining trauma.
- Patients or their legal representatives must provide informed consent for participation in the study.
Who cannot join
- Transfers from other facilities with interventions that may affect GAP or MGAP reliability.
- Pregnant women.
- Burn injuries represent the primary mechanism of trauma.
- Incomplete records or failure of follow-up
- Patients who are deceased upon arrival at the emergency department.
- Patient discharge against medical advice.
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, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
College of Medicine - Al-Nahrain University
Baghdad
Mohammad A. Hamdawi, Lecturer of general surgery, 009647801604775, mohammedhamdawi@nahrainuniv.edu.iq
Abdulillah R. Khamees
About this study
Official title: A Comparative Analysis of MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores in Predicting Prognosis for Multiple Trauma Patients: A Prospective Observational Study
The goal of this prospective cohort study is to compare the predictive accuracy of the MGAP and GAP trauma scores in determining the prognosis of multiple 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 MGAP score provide a more accurate prediction of outcomes compared to the GAP score? Are there specific subgroups of trauma patients where one score demonstrates superior predictive utility over the other?
Participants will:
Be assessed using both the MGAP and GAP scores upon admission to the emergency department.
Have their clinical outcomes, including mortality, length of stay, and need for surgery, tracked throughout their hospital stay.
Read the detailed description
Lower-middle income countries (LMICs) pay the price of a growing volume of trauma, as collateral damage for development, rapid urbanization and sociodemographic transition. Trauma includes various types of injuries, which can be either penetrating or non-penetrating, typically categorized as unintentional (like those from road accidents, falls, drownings, and burns) or intentional (including self-inflicted harm and violence). According to the WHO Global Burden of Disease project, around one billion individuals require trauma-related healthcare each year, accounting for 12% of the total global disease burden. Trauma represents a significant global health challenge, causing more fatalities than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and maternal mortality combined, with over five million deaths annually attributed to traumatic injuries. This makes trauma the fourth leading cause of death worldwide, and the WHO predicts a 40% increase in trauma-related fatalities by 2030, with nearly 90% of these deaths occurring in low and middle-income countries. Most trauma-related deaths happen shortly after the injury occurs, predominantly during the pre-hospital phase, which requires emergency service providers to quickly evaluate the patient's condition and the severity of the trauma to ensure proper referrals.
Research indicates that between 25% and 50% of trauma-related deaths are preventable. The mortality rate serves as the most reliable indicator of trauma prognosis, which can be assessed in two time frames: short-term (within 24 hours) and long-term (over four weeks). An efficient scoring system for trauma patients can assist physicians in rapidly and accurately evaluating injury severity and determining patient management. Timely intervention is crucial in trauma care, as providing swift and suitable treatment has been proven to reduce both mortality and morbidity rates consistently. Such prompt care depends on effective risk stratification in emergency settings. Currently, there are several trauma scoring systems available, each with differing accuracy and reliability for assessing morbidity and mortality risks in patients. Among these are the MGAP and GAP scores, which are simplified, physiologically-based scoring systems not yet widely implemented in low- and middle-income countries. The MGAP acronym stands for "mechanism of injury, GCS, age, and systolic blood pressure," and this score was initially developed in France as a pre-hospital triage tool to predict 30-day mortality. It has also been validated as effective in predicting prolonged ICU stays and major hemorrhages within a European demographic. The MGAP score has been adapted into the GAP score, which omits the injury mechanism for ease of use in clinical environments. GAP stands for "GCS, age, and systolic blood pressure," and it has been validated using data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank. Sartorius et al. determined in their research that the MGAP score can effectively predict the mortality rate of hospitalized trauma patients. Similarly, Yutaka Kondo et al. found that the GAP score can reliably predict the mortality rate of trauma patients in a hospital setting.
Despite advancements in trauma care, predicting outcomes for multiple trauma patients remains a critical challenge in clinical settings, particularly in low-resource environments like Iraq. There is a concerning scarcity of studies within the Iraqi context that evaluate the validity and reliability of scoring systems tailored to the region's unique demographic and healthcare landscape. This underscores the urgent need for comprehensive research to assess the efficacy of the MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores in predicting outcomes for multiple trauma patients in Iraq. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, reliability, and accuracy of the MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores in assessing the severity of injuries and predicting outcomes for a diverse population of multiple trauma patients.
- Conditions
- Trauma
- Keywords
- MGAP, GAP
- 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 7-10 days through discharge)
Accuracy Assessment of the MGAP score
(mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, age, and blood pressure), Total scores can range from 3 to 29, with a higher score predicting a better prognosis.
Measured: the first 4 hours after ER admission
Accuracy Assessment of the GAP score
Glasgow coma scale, age, and blood pressure (GAP) score: Total score ranges from 3 to 24. Higher scores suggest a better outcome.
Measured: the first 4 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 7-10 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 7-10 days
Need for Surgical Intervention
need for surgical intervention during a trauma patient's hospital stay.
Measured: Up to discharge, an average of 7-10 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 start20 Jan 2025
- Primary completion10 Mar 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion20 Mar 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (17)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
- 522 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Al-Nahrain University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Abdulillah R. Khamees, 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
- NCT06732791
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UNCOMIRB20241210B
- Other IDs
- 010
- Acronym
- MGAP-GAP
- Status last verified
- Mar 2026
- First submitted
- 10 Dec 2024
- Last updated
- 4 Mar 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006 Nov;3(11):e442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442.
PubMed 17132052Kondo Y, Abe T, Kohshi K, Tokuda Y, Cook EF, Kukita I. Revised trauma scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality in the emergency department: Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure score. Crit Care. 2011 Aug 10;15(4):R191. doi: 10.1186/cc10348.
PubMed 21831280Raux M, Sartorius D, Le Manach Y, David JS, Riou B, Vivien B. What do prehospital trauma scores predict besides mortality? J Trauma. 2011 Sep;71(3):754-9. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181fd0dae.
PubMed 21336194Sartorius D, Le Manach Y, David JS, Rancurel E, Smail N, Thicoipe M, Wiel E, Ricard-Hibon A, Berthier F, Gueugniaud PY, Riou B. Mechanism, glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial pressure (MGAP): a new simple prehospital triage score to predict mortality in trauma patients. Crit Care Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):831-7. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cc4a67.
PubMed 20068467Orhon R, Eren SH, Karadayi S, Korkmaz I, Coskun A, Eren M, Katrancioglu N. Comparison of trauma scores for predicting mortality and morbidity on trauma patients. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2014 Jul;20(4):258-64. doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2014.22725.
PubMed 25135020Nirula 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 20838131Shoko T, Shiraishi A, Kaji M, Otomo Y. Effect of pre-existing medical conditions on in-hospital mortality: analysis of 20,257 trauma patients in Japan. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Sep;211(3):338-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.04.010. Epub 2010 Jul 13.
PubMed 20800190Rehn M, Perel P, Blackhall K, Lossius HM. Prognostic models for the early care of trauma patients: a systematic review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011 Mar 20;19:17. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-17.
PubMed 21418599MacKenzie 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 16436768GBD 2016 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1151-1210. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32152-9.
PubMed 28919116GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015 Jan 10;385(9963):117-71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61682-2. Epub 2014 Dec 18.
PubMed 25530442Gerdin M, Roy N, Khajanchi M, Kumar V, Fellander-Tsai L, Petzold M, Tomson G, von Schreeb J; Towards Improved Trauma Care Outcomes in India (TITCO). Validation of a novel prediction model for early mortality in adult trauma patients in three public university hospitals in urban India. BMC Emerg Med. 2016 Feb 22;16:15. doi: 10.1186/s12873-016-0079-0.
PubMed 26905408Haagsma JA, Graetz N, Bolliger I, Naghavi M, Higashi H, Mullany EC, Abera SF, Abraham JP, Adofo K, Alsharif U, Ameh EA, Ammar W, Antonio CA, Barrero LH, Bekele T, Bose D, Brazinova A, Catala-Lopez F, Dandona L, Dandona R, Dargan PI, De Leo D, Degenhardt L, Derrett S, Dharmaratne SD, Driscoll TR, Duan L, Petrovich Ermakov S, Farzadfar F, Feigin VL, Franklin RC, Gabbe B, Gosselin RA, Hafezi-Nejad N, Hamadeh RR, Hijar M, Hu G, Jayaraman SP, Jiang G, Khader YS, Khan EA, Krishnaswami S, Kulkarni C, Lecky FE, Leung R, Lunevicius R, Lyons RA, Majdan M, Mason-Jones AJ, Matzopoulos R, Meaney PA, Mekonnen W, Miller TR, Mock CN, Norman RE, Orozco R, Polinder S, Pourmalek F, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Refaat A, Rojas-Rueda D, Roy N, Schwebel DC, Shaheen A, Shahraz S, Skirbekk V, Soreide K, Soshnikov S, Stein DJ, Sykes BL, Tabb KM, Temesgen AM, Tenkorang EY, Theadom AM, Tran BX, Vasankari TJ, Vavilala MS, Vlassov VV, Woldeyohannes SM, Yip P, Yonemoto N, Younis MZ, Yu C, Murray CJ, Vos T. The global burden of injury: incidence, mortality, disability-adjusted life years and time trends from the Global Burden of Disease study 2013. Inj Prev. 2016 Feb;22(1):3-18. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041616. Epub 2015 Dec 3.
PubMed 26635210Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, Aboyans V, Abraham J, Adair T, Aggarwal R, Ahn SY, Alvarado M, Anderson HR, Anderson LM, Andrews KG, Atkinson C, Baddour LM, Barker-Collo S, Bartels DH, Bell ML, Benjamin EJ, Bennett D, Bhalla K, Bikbov B, Bin Abdulhak A, Birbeck G, Blyth F, Bolliger I, Boufous S, Bucello C, Burch M, Burney P, Carapetis J, Chen H, Chou D, Chugh SS, Coffeng LE, Colan SD, Colquhoun S, Colson KE, Condon J, Connor MD, Cooper LT, Corriere M, Cortinovis M, de Vaccaro KC, Couser W, Cowie BC, Criqui MH, Cross M, Dabhadkar KC, Dahodwala N, De Leo D, Degenhardt L, Delossantos A, Denenberg J, Des Jarlais DC, Dharmaratne SD, Dorsey ER, Driscoll T, Duber H, Ebel B, Erwin PJ, Espindola P, Ezzati M, Feigin V, Flaxman AD, Forouzanfar MH, Fowkes FG, Franklin R, Fransen M, Freeman MK, Gabriel SE, Gakidou E, Gaspari F, Gillum RF, Gonzalez-Medina D, Halasa YA, Haring D, Harrison JE, Havmoeller R, Hay RJ, Hoen B, Hotez PJ, Hoy D, Jacobsen KH, James SL, Jasrasaria R, Jayaraman S, Johns N, Karthikeyan G, Kassebaum N, Keren A, Khoo JP, Knowlton LM, Kobusingye O, Koranteng A, Krishnamurthi R, Lipnick M, Lipshultz SE, Ohno SL, Mabweijano J, MacIntyre MF, Mallinger L, March L, Marks GB, Marks R, Matsumori A, Matzopoulos R, Mayosi BM, McAnulty JH, McDermott MM, McGrath J, Mensah GA, Merriman TR, Michaud C, Miller M, Miller TR, Mock C, Mocumbi AO, Mokdad AA, Moran A, Mulholland K, Nair MN, Naldi L, Narayan KM, Nasseri K, Norman P, O'Donnell M, Omer SB, Ortblad K, Osborne R, Ozgediz D, Pahari B, Pandian JD, Rivero AP, Padilla RP, Perez-Ruiz F, Perico N, Phillips D, Pierce K, Pope CA 3rd, Porrini E, Pourmalek F, Raju M, Ranganathan D, Rehm JT, Rein DB, Remuzzi G, Rivara FP, Roberts T, De Leon FR, Rosenfeld LC, Rushton L, Sacco RL, Salomon JA, Sampson U, Sanman E, Schwebel DC, Segui-Gomez M, Shepard DS, Singh D, Singleton J, Sliwa K, Smith E, Steer A, Taylor JA, Thomas B, Tleyjeh IM, Towbin JA, Truelsen T, Undurraga EA, Venketasubramanian N, Vijayakumar L, Vos T, Wagner GR, Wang M, Wang W, Watt K, Weinstock MA, Weintraub R, Wilkinson JD, Woolf AD, Wulf S, Yeh PH, Yip P, Zabetian A, Zheng ZJ, Lopez AD, Murray CJ, AlMazroa MA, Memish ZA. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2095-128. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61728-0.
PubMed 23245604WHO. World report on Preventing injuries and violence: an overview. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Mar 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Comparative Analysis of MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores in Predicting Prognosis for Multiple Trauma Patients: A Prospective Observational Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06732791
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MGAP-GAP / UNCOMIRB20241210B
- Conditions
- Trauma
- Keywords
- MGAP, GAP
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 522 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Al-Nahrain UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 20 Jan 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 10 Mar 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 20 Mar 2027 (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 compare the predictive accuracy of the MGAP and GAP trauma scores in determining the prognosis of multiple trauma patients admitted to the emergency department at Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital, Iraq.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Does the MGAP score provide a more accurate prediction of outcomes compared to the GAP score? Are there specific subgroups of trauma patients where one score demonstrates superior predictive utility over the other?
Participants will:
Be assessed using both the MGAP and GAP scores upon admission to the emergency department.
Have their clinical outcomes, including mortality, length of stay, and need for surgery, tracked throughout their hospital stay.
Detailed description
Lower-middle income countries (LMICs) pay the price of a growing volume of trauma, as collateral damage for development, rapid urbanization and sociodemographic transition. Trauma includes various types of injuries, which can be either penetrating or non-penetrating, typically categorized as unintentional (like those from road accidents, falls, drownings, and burns) or intentional (including self-inflicted harm and violence). According to the WHO Global Burden of Disease project, around one billion individuals require trauma-related healthcare each year, accounting for 12% of the total global disease burden. Trauma represents a significant global health challenge, causing more fatalities than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and maternal mortality combined, with over five million deaths annually attributed to traumatic injuries. This makes trauma the fourth leading cause of death worldwide, and the WHO predicts a 40% increase in trauma-related fatalities by 2030, with nearly 90% of these deaths occurring in low and middle-income countries. Most trauma-related deaths happen shortly after the injury occurs, predominantly during the pre-hospital phase, which requires emergency service providers to quickly evaluate the patient's condition and the severity of the trauma to ensure proper referrals.
Research indicates that between 25% and 50% of trauma-related deaths are preventable. The mortality rate serves as the most reliable indicator of trauma prognosis, which can be assessed in two time frames: short-term (within 24 hours) and long-term (over four weeks). An efficient scoring system for trauma patients can assist physicians in rapidly and accurately evaluating injury severity and determining patient management. Timely intervention is crucial in trauma care, as providing swift and suitable treatment has been proven to reduce both mortality and morbidity rates consistently. Such prompt care depends on effective risk stratification in emergency settings. Currently, there are several trauma scoring systems available, each with differing accuracy and reliability for assessing morbidity and mortality risks in patients. Among these are the MGAP and GAP scores, which are simplified, physiologically-based scoring systems not yet widely implemented in low- and middle-income countries. The MGAP acronym stands for "mechanism of injury, GCS, age, and systolic blood pressure," and this score was initially developed in France as a pre-hospital triage tool to predict 30-day mortality. It has also been validated as effective in predicting prolonged ICU stays and major hemorrhages within a European demographic. The MGAP score has been adapted into the GAP score, which omits the injury mechanism for ease of use in clinical environments. GAP stands for "GCS, age, and systolic blood pressure," and it has been validated using data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank. Sartorius et al. determined in their research that the MGAP score can effectively predict the mortality rate of hospitalized trauma patients. Similarly, Yutaka Kondo et al. found that the GAP score can reliably predict the mortality rate of trauma patients in a hospital setting.
Despite advancements in trauma care, predicting outcomes for multiple trauma patients remains a critical challenge in clinical settings, particularly in low-resource environments like Iraq. There is a concerning scarcity of studies within the Iraqi context that evaluate the validity and reliability of scoring systems tailored to the region's unique demographic and healthcare landscape. This underscores the urgent need for comprehensive research to assess the efficacy of the MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores in predicting outcomes for multiple trauma patients in Iraq. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, reliability, and accuracy of the MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores in assessing the severity of injuries and predicting outcomes for a diverse population of multiple trauma patients.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 16 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study will include patients presenting with multiple trauma to the Trauma and Emergency Department at Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital, Iraq. This population comprises patients who have sustained injuries affecting multiple body regions and require urgent medical evaluation and management
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Aged 16 years or older.
- Patients presenting with multiple trauma (Multiple trauma is defined as injuries involving two or more body regions or organ systems that might need coordinated multidisciplinary management).
- Patients presenting to the emergency department within 6 hours of sustaining trauma.
- Patients or their legal representatives must provide informed consent for participation in the study.
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Transfers from other facilities with interventions that may affect GAP or MGAP reliability.
- Pregnant women.
- Burn injuries represent the primary mechanism of trauma.
- Incomplete records or failure of follow-up
- Patients who are deceased upon arrival at the emergency department.
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 7-10 days through discharge)
Mortality (death) during hospitalization.
Accuracy Assessment of the MGAP score
Time frame: the first 4 hours after ER admission
(mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, age, and blood pressure), Total scores can range from 3 to 29, with a higher score predicting a better prognosis.
Accuracy Assessment of the GAP score
Time frame: the first 4 hours after ER admission
Glasgow coma scale, age, and blood pressure (GAP) score: Total score ranges from 3 to 24. Higher scores suggest a better outcome.
3 secondary outcomes
Length of Hospitalization
Time frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7-10 days
Need for ICU Admission
Time frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7-10 days
Need for Surgical Intervention
Time frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7-10 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 4 Mar 2026.
- Background: PubMed 17132052Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006 Nov;3(11):e442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442.
- Results publication: PubMed 21831280Kondo Y, Abe T, Kohshi K, Tokuda Y, Cook EF, Kukita I. Revised trauma scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality in the emergency department: Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure score. Crit Care. 2011 Aug 10;15(4):R191. doi: 10.1186/cc10348.
- Results publication: PubMed 21336194Raux M, Sartorius D, Le Manach Y, David JS, Riou B, Vivien B. What do prehospital trauma scores predict besides mortality? J Trauma. 2011 Sep;71(3):754-9. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181fd0dae.
- Results publication: PubMed 20068467Sartorius D, Le Manach Y, David JS, Rancurel E, Smail N, Thicoipe M, Wiel E, Ricard-Hibon A, Berthier F, Gueugniaud PY, Riou B. Mechanism, glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial pressure (MGAP): a new simple prehospital triage score to predict mortality in trauma patients. Crit Care Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):831-7. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cc4a67.
- Results publication: PubMed 25135020Orhon R, Eren SH, Karadayi S, Korkmaz I, Coskun A, Eren M, Katrancioglu N. Comparison of trauma scores for predicting mortality and morbidity on trauma patients. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2014 Jul;20(4):258-64. doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2014.22725.
- Results publication: 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 20800190Shoko T, Shiraishi A, Kaji M, Otomo Y. Effect of pre-existing medical conditions on in-hospital mortality: analysis of 20,257 trauma patients in Japan. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Sep;211(3):338-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.04.010. Epub 2010 Jul 13.
- Results publication: PubMed 21418599Rehn M, Perel P, Blackhall K, Lossius HM. Prognostic models for the early care of trauma patients: a systematic review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011 Mar 20;19:17. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-17.
- Results publication: 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 28919116GBD 2016 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1151-1210. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32152-9.
- Results publication: PubMed 25530442GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015 Jan 10;385(9963):117-71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61682-2. Epub 2014 Dec 18.
- Results publication: PubMed 26905408Gerdin M, Roy N, Khajanchi M, Kumar V, Fellander-Tsai L, Petzold M, Tomson G, von Schreeb J; Towards Improved Trauma Care Outcomes in India (TITCO). Validation of a novel prediction model for early mortality in adult trauma patients in three public university hospitals in urban India. BMC Emerg Med. 2016 Feb 22;16:15. doi: 10.1186/s12873-016-0079-0.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Trauma
Recruiting
PAW-Hydrogel for Chronic Wound Healing
Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU), Pressure Ulcer (PU)
Recruiting
NightWare and Cardiovascular Health in Women With PTSD
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Cardiovascular Diseases
Not yet recruiting
Safety Study of Microlyte DualGuard
Wound Closure, Wound Care
Enrolling by invitation
Personalized Ventilator Settings for Patients on ECMO
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Recruiting
Effects of Cervicothoracic Mobilization in Patients With Supraspinatus Tendinitis
Rotator Cuff Tendonitis
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 4 inclusion and 6 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Mar 2026. 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 Abdulillah R. Khamees (+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 7-10 days through discharge)). 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 NCT06732791, which also lists 17 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 4 Mar 2026.