Trauma PatientsTRAPSNCT07186777
Comparison of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Trauma
An observational study of Trauma Patients, run by Al-Nahrain University at 1 site in Iraq.
Trial summary
The goal of this prospective multicenter cohort study is to evaluate and compare the predictive utility of the EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP scores in determining key outcomes among trauma patients admitted to participating hospitals in Iraq. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 16 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Trauma Patients
- How many people
- 188 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIraq
- Study dates
- 15 Sep 2025to 15 Dec 2026
- 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 population will consist of adult trauma patients (≥16 years) admitted to the emergency departments of participating tertiary hospitals in Iraq. Eligible patients will include those with blunt or penetrating trauma who present within 12 hours of injury. Patients will be assessed using EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP scores at admission, with outcomes monitored until discharge or in-hospital death.
Who may be able to join
- Patients presenting to the emergency department with trauma.
- Patients or their legal guardians must provide informed consent to participate in the study.
- Admission within 12 hours of injury.
Who cannot join
- Patients with incomplete clinical data or those discharged before scoring can be performed.
- Pregnant patients (due to specific physiological considerations not accounted for by the scoring system).
- Patients who died before arrival or were declared dead on arrival.
- Patients who refuse participation or for whom informed consent cannot be obtained.
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, 10001
College OMN Khamees, MBBCH, 07838571013, abdulilah.r.khamis@gmail.com
abdulilah.r.khamis@gmail.com
About this study
Official title: Comparative Predictive Accuracy of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores for Mortality, Endotracheal Intubation, and Length of Hospitalization in Trauma Patients: The First Prospective Cohort Study From Iraq
The goal of this prospective multicenter cohort study is to evaluate and compare the predictive utility of the EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP scores in determining key outcomes among trauma patients admitted to participating hospitals in Iraq. The primary outcomes of interest include mortality, the need for endotracheal intubation, and length of hospitalization.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Read more
How accurately do EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP scores predict mortality in trauma patients?
How effective are these scores in predicting the need for endotracheal intubation?
How well do these scores correlate with hospitalization duration in trauma patients?
Participants will:
Be assessed using EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP scores upon admission to the emergency department.
Have their clinical outcomes, including survival, intubation requirements, and length of hospital stay, monitored throughout their hospitalization.
Read the detailed description
Trauma continues to pose a major global public health challenge, accounting for millions of deaths and disabilities each year, with low and middle income countries bearing a disproportionately high burden . Studies suggest that injuries will rise further among the leading causes of mortality, with road traffic accidents, falls, and suicide being among the most prevalent contributors. Approximately 90 percent of trauma deaths occur in low and middle income settings, and a significant portion of these fatalities are considered preventable with the appropriate care.
Efficient risk stratification plays an important role in managing trauma patients, particularly in emergency settings where delays in treatment can have fatal outcomes. Early identification of severely injured individuals supports timely referral and initiation of interventions, both of which are consistently associated with reduced morbidity and mortality.
A wide range of trauma scoring systems have been developed to estimate injury severity, guide triage decisions, and predict outcomes. Yet many established scores, such as the Injury Severity Score and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score, depend on detailed anatomical information that is often unavailable during the critical early phase of emergency care. Others, such as the Revised Trauma Score, are based on physiological indicators but are more complex and may not fully incorporate factors like age or specific injury types. Similarly, scoring systems such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II rely on laboratory values, making them less suitable for rapid use in emergency departments.
This limitation becomes even more evident in low and middle income countries, where resource constraints, limited access to complete medical records, and varying trauma patterns make it difficult to apply many existing scoring tools. The need for simple, reliable, and rapid assessment tools that can be applied at the point of care in these environments is especially urgent.
This study focuses on three trauma scores that can be applied early in a patient's clinical course and require only minimal resources: the Emergency Trauma Score, the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, and the Glasgow Coma Scale Age Pressure score.
The Emergency Trauma Score was developed to estimate the risk of mortality in adult trauma patients using four parameters: age, Glasgow Coma Scale, base excess, and prothrombin time. These values are typically available within 30 minutes of arrival in the emergency department, and this score does not depend on anatomical injury data, making it suitable for early prognostic assessment. The Rapid Emergency Medicine Score is a simplified version of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and includes the Glasgow Coma Scale, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and age. Although originally developed for patients with non-traumatic conditions this score has demonstrated promising predictive ability in trauma populations as well. A modified version of this score, known as the modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, was later created to optimize performance in trauma patients. This version adjusts the weight given to age and the Glasgow Coma Scale and replaces mean arterial pressure with systolic blood pressure. The Glasgow Coma Scale Age Pressure score is derived from the Mechanism Glasgow Coma Scale Age Pressure score by removing the mechanism of injury component. It focuses exclusively on physiological variables, specifically Glasgow Coma Scale, age, and systolic blood pressure. The score can be calculated quickly based on a patient's initial clinical status and vital signs, making it especially well-suited for use in settings with limited resources. Previous studies have shown that it has strong predictive ability for mortality.
Although these trauma scores have demonstrated potential, most validation studies have been conducted in high income countries or through single-center retrospective designs. To increase generalizability and relevance to diverse healthcare environments, there is a need for prospective multicenter research, particularly in settings with limited resources and infrastructure.
This current study presents a multicenter prospective cohort analysis from Iraq, a country facing a substantial burden of trauma and significant healthcare challenges. This research compares the accuracy of the Emergency Trauma Score, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale Age Pressure score in predicting in-hospital mortality among adult trauma patients. The findings aim to offer evidence-based insights that could improve trauma triage and clinical decision-making in resource-constrained environments.
- Conditions
- Trauma Patients
- Keywords
- EMTRAS, REMS, GAP, Trauma
- Medical subject headings
- Wounds and Injuries
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Accuracy Assessment of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Predicting In-Hospital Mortality
This outcome evaluates the ability of EMTRAS (range 0-12), REMS (range 0-26), and GAP (range 3-24) to predict in-hospital mortality among trauma patients. Higher EMTRAS and REMS scores, and lower GAP scores, are expected to correlate with increased mortality risk.
Measured: From admission to hospital discharge or death, up to 30 days.
Secondary outcomes (3)
Accuracy Assessment of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Predicting the Need for Endotracheal Intubation
This outcome evaluates the predictive performance of EMTRAS (range 0-12), REMS (range 0-26), and GAP (range 3-24) in identifying trauma patients requiring endotracheal intubation during hospitalization. Higher EMTRAS and REMS scores, and lower GAP scores, are expected to be associated with an increased likelihood of intubation.
Measured: From emergency department admission to intubation, discharge, or in-hospital death (up to 30 days).
Accuracy Assessment of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Predicting Length of Hospitalization
This outcome assesses the ability of EMTRAS (range 0-12), REMS (range 0-26), and GAP (range 3-24) to predict hospitalization duration. Patients with lower severity scores (low EMTRAS/REMS or high GAP) are expected to have shorter hospital stays, while those with higher severity scores are likely to require prolonged hospitalization.
Measured: From hospital admission to discharge, up to 30 days.
Accuracy Assessment of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Predicting In-Hospital Morbidity
This outcome evaluates the incidence and types of complications (morbidity) experienced by trauma patients, as predicted by EMTRAS (0-12), REMS (0-26), and GAP (3-24) scores. Higher EMTRAS and REMS values, and lower GAP scores, are expected to correlate with increased morbidity, including respiratory complications, infections, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and other trauma-related adverse events.
Measured: From hospital admission to discharge or death, up to 30 days.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Sep 2025
- Study start15 Sep 2025
- Primary completion1 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion15 Dec 2026 (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 Trauma PatientsStudies 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
- 188 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
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07186777
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UNCOMIRB2025934
- Acronym
- TRAPS
- Status last verified
- Mar 2026
- First submitted
- 16 Sep 2025
- Last updated
- 4 Mar 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Rehn 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 21418599WHO Global Health Estimates. INJURIES VIOLENCE THE FACTS.; 2014.https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/149798/9789241508018_eng.pdf?sequence=1
Whitaker J, O'Donohoe N, Denning M, Poenaru D, Guadagno E, Leather AJM, Davies JI. Assessing trauma care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and evidence synthesis mapping the Three Delays framework to injury health system assessments. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 May;6(5):e004324. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004324.
PubMed 33975885Granstrom A, Schandl A, Martensson J, Strommer L. Using the GAP score as a complement to the NISS score in identifying severely injured patients- A registry-based cohort study of adult trauma patients in Sweden. Injury. 2024 Sep;55(9):111709. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.111709. Epub 2024 Jun 28.
PubMed 38969590GJRA - Global Journal for Research Analysis - Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) as a prognostic marker and its comparison with traditional scoring systems in trauma. (n.d.). https://www.worldwidejournals.com/global-journal-for-research-analysis-GJRA/file.php?val=diagnostic-accuracy-of-rapid-emergency-medicine-score-rems-as-a-prognostic-marker-and-its-comparison-with-traditional-scoring-systems-in-trauma_January_2023_7615446958_8010945.pdf
Karakus A, Yilmaz S, Demirci S, et al. An evaluation of trauma scores (RTS, GAP, EMTRAS) on mortality in multiple trauma patients. J Emerg Med. 2023;65(1):1-8. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.04.012
Phunghassaporn N, Sukhvibul P, Techapongsatorn S, Tansawet A. Accuracy and external validation of the modified rapid emergency medicine score in road traffic injuries in a Bangkok level I trauma center. Heliyon. 2022 Dec 10;8(12):e12225. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12225. eCollection 2022 Dec.
PubMed 36568674Joosse P, de Jong WJ, Reitsma JB, Wendt KW, Schep NW, Goslings JC. External validation of the Emergency Trauma Score for early prediction of mortality in trauma patients. Crit Care Med. 2014 Jan;42(1):83-9. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829e53f5.
PubMed 23982027Mangini, M., Di Valvasone, S., Greco, C., Ognibene, A., Cappuccini, G., Spina, R., Tartaglia, R., Zagli, G., & Peris, A. (2010). Validation of the new proposed Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS). Critical Care, 14(Suppl 1), P252. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc8484
Kumar, G., Kaur, R., Yadav, R., & Kachru, N. (2022). Comparison of Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS) with Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) for Prediction of Early Mortality in Adult Trauma Patients. Archives of Anesthesia and Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v8i3.9608
Park HO, Kim JW, Kim SH, Moon SH, Byun JH, Kim KN, Yang JH, Lee CE, Jang IS, Kang DH, Kim SC, Kang C, Choi JY. Usability verification of the Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS) and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) in patients with trauma: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Nov;96(44):e8449. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008449.
PubMed 29095289Imhoff BF, Thompson NJ, Hastings MA, Nazir N, Moncure M, Cannon CM. Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) in the trauma population: a retrospective study. BMJ Open. 2014 May 2;4(5):e004738. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004738.
PubMed 24793256Miller RT, Nazir N, McDonald T, Cannon CM. The modified rapid emergency medicine score: A novel trauma triage tool to predict in-hospital mortality. Injury. 2017 Sep;48(9):1870-1877. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.048. Epub 2017 Apr 25.
PubMed 28465003Olsson T, Terent A, Lind L. Rapid Emergency Medicine score: a new prognostic tool for in-hospital mortality in nonsurgical emergency department patients. J Intern Med. 2004 May;255(5):579-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01321.x.
PubMed 15078500Kumar G, Kaur R, Yadav R, Kachru N. Comparison of Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS) with Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) for prediction of early mortality in adult trauma patients. Arch Anesthesiol Crit Care. 2022;8(3):193-200.
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
- Comparative Predictive Accuracy of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores for Mortality, Endotracheal Intubation, and Length of Hospitalization in Trauma Patients: The First Prospective Cohort Study From Iraq
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07186777
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- TRAPS / UNCOMIRB2025934
- Conditions
- Trauma Patients
- Keywords
- EMTRAS, REMS, GAP, Trauma
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 188 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Al-Nahrain UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Sep 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 15 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 Sep 2025 (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 multicenter cohort study is to evaluate and compare the predictive utility of the EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP scores in determining key outcomes among trauma patients admitted to participating hospitals in Iraq. The primary outcomes of interest include mortality, the need for endotracheal intubation, and length of hospitalization.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
How accurately do EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP scores predict mortality in trauma patients?
How effective are these scores in predicting the need for endotracheal intubation?
How well do these scores correlate with hospitalization duration in trauma patients?
Participants will:
Be assessed using EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP scores upon admission to the emergency department.
Have their clinical outcomes, including survival, intubation requirements, and length of hospital stay, monitored throughout their hospitalization.
Detailed description
Trauma continues to pose a major global public health challenge, accounting for millions of deaths and disabilities each year, with low and middle income countries bearing a disproportionately high burden . Studies suggest that injuries will rise further among the leading causes of mortality, with road traffic accidents, falls, and suicide being among the most prevalent contributors. Approximately 90 percent of trauma deaths occur in low and middle income settings, and a significant portion of these fatalities are considered preventable with the appropriate care.
Efficient risk stratification plays an important role in managing trauma patients, particularly in emergency settings where delays in treatment can have fatal outcomes. Early identification of severely injured individuals supports timely referral and initiation of interventions, both of which are consistently associated with reduced morbidity and mortality.
A wide range of trauma scoring systems have been developed to estimate injury severity, guide triage decisions, and predict outcomes. Yet many established scores, such as the Injury Severity Score and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score, depend on detailed anatomical information that is often unavailable during the critical early phase of emergency care. Others, such as the Revised Trauma Score, are based on physiological indicators but are more complex and may not fully incorporate factors like age or specific injury types. Similarly, scoring systems such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II rely on laboratory values, making them less suitable for rapid use in emergency departments.
This limitation becomes even more evident in low and middle income countries, where resource constraints, limited access to complete medical records, and varying trauma patterns make it difficult to apply many existing scoring tools. The need for simple, reliable, and rapid assessment tools that can be applied at the point of care in these environments is especially urgent.
This study focuses on three trauma scores that can be applied early in a patient's clinical course and require only minimal resources: the Emergency Trauma Score, the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, and the Glasgow Coma Scale Age Pressure score.
The Emergency Trauma Score was developed to estimate the risk of mortality in adult trauma patients using four parameters: age, Glasgow Coma Scale, base excess, and prothrombin time. These values are typically available within 30 minutes of arrival in the emergency department, and this score does not depend on anatomical injury data, making it suitable for early prognostic assessment. The Rapid Emergency Medicine Score is a simplified version of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and includes the Glasgow Coma Scale, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and age. Although originally developed for patients with non-traumatic conditions this score has demonstrated promising predictive ability in trauma populations as well. A modified version of this score, known as the modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, was later created to optimize performance in trauma patients. This version adjusts the weight given to age and the Glasgow Coma Scale and replaces mean arterial pressure with systolic blood pressure. The Glasgow Coma Scale Age Pressure score is derived from the Mechanism Glasgow Coma Scale Age Pressure score by removing the mechanism of injury component. It focuses exclusively on physiological variables, specifically Glasgow Coma Scale, age, and systolic blood pressure. The score can be calculated quickly based on a patient's initial clinical status and vital signs, making it especially well-suited for use in settings with limited resources. Previous studies have shown that it has strong predictive ability for mortality.
Although these trauma scores have demonstrated potential, most validation studies have been conducted in high income countries or through single-center retrospective designs. To increase generalizability and relevance to diverse healthcare environments, there is a need for prospective multicenter research, particularly in settings with limited resources and infrastructure.
This current study presents a multicenter prospective cohort analysis from Iraq, a country facing a substantial burden of trauma and significant healthcare challenges. This research compares the accuracy of the Emergency Trauma Score, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale Age Pressure score in predicting in-hospital mortality among adult trauma patients. The findings aim to offer evidence-based insights that could improve trauma triage and clinical decision-making in resource-constrained environments.
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 population will consist of adult trauma patients (≥16 years) admitted to the emergency departments of participating tertiary hospitals in Iraq. Eligible patients will include those with blunt or penetrating trauma who present within 12 hours of injury. Patients will be assessed using EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP scores at admission, with outcomes monitored until discharge or in-hospital death.
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients presenting to the emergency department with trauma.
- Patients or their legal guardians must provide informed consent to participate in the study.
- Admission within 12 hours of injury.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patients with incomplete clinical data or those discharged before scoring can be performed.
- Pregnant patients (due to specific physiological considerations not accounted for by the scoring system).
- Patients who died before arrival or were declared dead on arrival.
- Patients who refuse participation or for whom informed consent cannot be obtained.
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
Accuracy Assessment of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Predicting In-Hospital Mortality
Time frame: From admission to hospital discharge or death, up to 30 days.
This outcome evaluates the ability of EMTRAS (range 0-12), REMS (range 0-26), and GAP (range 3-24) to predict in-hospital mortality among trauma patients. Higher EMTRAS and REMS scores, and lower GAP scores, are expected to correlate with increased mortality risk.
3 secondary outcomes
Accuracy Assessment of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Predicting the Need for Endotracheal Intubation
Time frame: From emergency department admission to intubation, discharge, or in-hospital death (up to 30 days).
Accuracy Assessment of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Predicting Length of Hospitalization
Time frame: From hospital admission to discharge, up to 30 days.
Accuracy Assessment of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Predicting In-Hospital Morbidity
Time frame: From hospital admission to discharge or death, up to 30 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 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.
- BackgroundWHO Global Health Estimates. INJURIES VIOLENCE THE FACTS.; 2014.https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/149798/9789241508018_eng.pdf?sequence=1
- Background: PubMed 33975885Whitaker J, O'Donohoe N, Denning M, Poenaru D, Guadagno E, Leather AJM, Davies JI. Assessing trauma care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and evidence synthesis mapping the Three Delays framework to injury health system assessments. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 May;6(5):e004324. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004324.
- Results publication: PubMed 38969590Granstrom A, Schandl A, Martensson J, Strommer L. Using the GAP score as a complement to the NISS score in identifying severely injured patients- A registry-based cohort study of adult trauma patients in Sweden. Injury. 2024 Sep;55(9):111709. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.111709. Epub 2024 Jun 28.
- Results publicationGJRA - Global Journal for Research Analysis - Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) as a prognostic marker and its comparison with traditional scoring systems in trauma. (n.d.). https://www.worldwidejournals.com/global-journal-for-research-analysis-GJRA/file.php?val=diagnostic-accuracy-of-rapid-emergency-medicine-score-rems-as-a-prognostic-marker-and-its-comparison-with-traditional-scoring-systems-in-trauma_January_2023_7615446958_8010945.pdf
- Results publicationKarakus A, Yilmaz S, Demirci S, et al. An evaluation of trauma scores (RTS, GAP, EMTRAS) on mortality in multiple trauma patients. J Emerg Med. 2023;65(1):1-8. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.04.012
- Results publication: PubMed 36568674Phunghassaporn N, Sukhvibul P, Techapongsatorn S, Tansawet A. Accuracy and external validation of the modified rapid emergency medicine score in road traffic injuries in a Bangkok level I trauma center. Heliyon. 2022 Dec 10;8(12):e12225. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12225. eCollection 2022 Dec.
- Results publication: PubMed 23982027Joosse P, de Jong WJ, Reitsma JB, Wendt KW, Schep NW, Goslings JC. External validation of the Emergency Trauma Score for early prediction of mortality in trauma patients. Crit Care Med. 2014 Jan;42(1):83-9. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829e53f5.
- Results publicationMangini, M., Di Valvasone, S., Greco, C., Ognibene, A., Cappuccini, G., Spina, R., Tartaglia, R., Zagli, G., & Peris, A. (2010). Validation of the new proposed Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS). Critical Care, 14(Suppl 1), P252. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc8484
- Results publicationKumar, G., Kaur, R., Yadav, R., & Kachru, N. (2022). Comparison of Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS) with Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) for Prediction of Early Mortality in Adult Trauma Patients. Archives of Anesthesia and Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v8i3.9608
- Results publication: PubMed 29095289Park HO, Kim JW, Kim SH, Moon SH, Byun JH, Kim KN, Yang JH, Lee CE, Jang IS, Kang DH, Kim SC, Kang C, Choi JY. Usability verification of the Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS) and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) in patients with trauma: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Nov;96(44):e8449. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008449.
- Results publication: PubMed 24793256Imhoff BF, Thompson NJ, Hastings MA, Nazir N, Moncure M, Cannon CM. Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) in the trauma population: a retrospective study. BMJ Open. 2014 May 2;4(5):e004738. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004738.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Trauma Patients
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
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Postural Control and Balance Performance in Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), Postural Assessment
Not yet recruiting
Vitamin C for Acute Kidney Injury in ACLF With Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (ACLF)
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.
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 Patients, 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 3 inclusion and 4 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, MBBCH (+9647838571013, abdulilah.r.khamis@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Accuracy Assessment of EMTRAS, REMS, and GAP Scores in Predicting In-Hospital Mortality (time frame: From admission to hospital discharge or death, up to 30 days.). 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 NCT07186777, 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.