Comparison of RTS and MGAP Scores in Predicting Outcomes of Trauma Patients (RTS-MGAP)

March 3, 2026 updated by: Abdulillah R. Khamees, Al-Nahrain University

Mortality Prediction in Multiple Trauma Patients: A Comparison of the Revised Trauma Score and MGAP Score at a Trauma Center

The goal of this prospective cohort study is to compare the predictive accuracy of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and the MGAP score in determining clinical outcomes among multiple trauma patients hospitalized at a trauma center in Iraq.

The main questions it aims to answer are:

Which score, RTS or MGAP, provides a more accurate prediction of clinical outcomes, including mortality? Are there specific subgroups of trauma patients where one scoring system outperforms the other?

Participants will:

Be assessed using both the RTS and MGAP scores upon admission. Have their clinical outcomes, including mortality and other relevant indicators, monitored throughout their hospital stay.

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Detailed Description

Trauma is one of the top four causes of mortality in developing countries and the second leading cause of death among the youth in these countries, as well as being the primary cause of year of life lost (YLL). Trauma represents a significant public health issue all over the world. With the progress of scientific and technological advancements and the industrialization of societies over the past century, trauma and its associated complications have emerged as the leading contributors to mortality and disability among individuals aged 1 to 44. Trauma represents a time-sensitive condition. Proper and effective management of trauma patients in both pre-hospital and hospital settings contributes to reducing mortality and preventing complications. The primary objectives in managing trauma patients include the rapid assessment of critically ill individuals, establishing treatment priorities, and delivering suitable care services.

Throughout the years, the rates of mortality due to trauma in Iraq have varied greatly because of different conflict-related influences. At the onset of the Iraq War in 2003, the case fatality rate (CFR) stood at approximately 20.4%, but by 2017 it had dropped to around 10.1%, indicating better survival outcomes among injured individuals. A study that examined combat-related fatalities from 2003 to 2006 found that although the monthly death count had doubled, the overall CFR stayed constant.

Scoring systems have been classically classified as anatomical, physiological, or combined scoring systems. The AIS, ISS, and NISS represent anatomical scoring systems that utilize various anatomical factors, such as the site and intensity of injuries. In contrast, the GCS, RTS, and PHI are physiological scoring systems that can be derived from data obtained during physical examinations. Additionally, the TRISS, NTRISS, and a TRISS are combined scoring systems that incorporate both anatomical and physiological characteristics of trauma.

The revised trauma score (RTS) is a physiological scoring system employed to assess trauma patients. Initially developed and assessed through a study involving over 2,000 individuals (10), the RTS incorporates three key physiological indicators: the Glasgow coma scale (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and respiration rate (RR). In addition, MGAP is primarily a physiological score that has been developed to predict survival outcomes in individuals experiencing trauma. Although it has been validated in research settings, it remains underutilized in low- and middle-income regions, despite its promise and practicality. The acronym MGAP represents the mechanism of injury (M), the Glasgow Coma Scale (G) score, the patient's age (A), and the systolic blood pressure (P). This score has previously been validated in France for its ability to predict 30-day mortality.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Estimated)

200

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

      • Baghdad, Iraq
        • Recruiting
        • College of Medicine - Al-Nahrain University
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Ahmed K. Elshehaby, Student
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Osama N. Htitani, M.B.CH.B
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Hassan. H ElAdl, Student
        • Contact:
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Jaafar Bashar Abass, Student
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Salim K. Hajwal, Lecturer
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Hasan Naeem Kareem, Lecturer
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Abdulillah R. Khamees

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Multiple trauma patients were admitted to the trauma and emergency department at Al-Kadhimiya Teaching Hospital in Baghdad.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Presentation to the trauma center within 6 hours of injury.
  • Availability of complete clinical and demographic data for scoring using RTS and MGAP.
  • Patients who consent to participate in the study or whose legal representatives provide consent.
  • Capability to assess outcomes such as survival, ICU admission, and complications.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who expired before scoring or evaluation
  • Missing or unreliable medical data for RTS or MGAP score calculations.
  • Transfers from other facilities with interventions that could impact RTS or MGAP reliability.
  • Pregnant patients, due to the unique considerations of trauma in pregnancy.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
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.
the first 6 hours after ER admission
Accuracy Assessment of the MGAP score
Time Frame: the first 6 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.
the first 6 hours after ER admission
In hospital mortality
Time Frame: In-Hospital Phase (average of 7 days through discharge)
Mortality (death) during hospitalization.
In-Hospital Phase (average of 7 days through discharge)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Length of Hospitalization
Time Frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
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.
Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Number of Participants Requiring ICU Admission
Time Frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
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.
Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
Number of Participants Requiring Surgical Intervention
Time Frame: Up to discharge, an average of 7 days
need for surgical intervention during a trauma patient's hospital stay.
Up to discharge, an average of 7 days

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Study Director: Bashar A Abdulhassan, Assistant professor of surgery, College Of Medicine - Nahrain University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

January 20, 2025

Primary Completion (Estimated)

December 10, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 20, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

December 12, 2024

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 16, 2024

First Posted (Actual)

December 20, 2024

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 4, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 3, 2026

Last Verified

March 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • UNCOMIRB20241213
  • 014 (Other Identifier: Nahrain Medical Research Collective (NMRC))

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Multiple Trauma/Injuries

Subscribe