Comparative evaluation of rapid emergency medicine score (REMS) and emergency trauma score (EMTRAS) against traditional trauma scoring systems—namely the injury severity score (ISS), new injury severity score (NISS), revised trauma score (RTS), and trauma

ABSTRACT Introduction: Trauma scoring systems are essential for predicting outcomes in trauma patients, guiding clinical decisions, and optimizing resource allocation. Common systems include the Injury Severity Score (ISS), New ISS (NISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Trauma and ISS (TRISS), Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS), and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS). This study aims to evaluate the predictive accuracy of REMS and EMTRAS in comparison to traditional trauma scoring systems. Methods: This prospective observational study involved 1090 trauma patients admitted to the Department of Emergency Medicine from January 2021 to December 2023. Eligible patients were aged 18 or older with documented trauma. Data collection encompassed demographics, clinical parameters, and trauma severity, assessed using six scoring systems. Outcomes were monitored until patient discharge or death. Results: The cohort consisted of 915 (83.9%) male patients with a mean age of 36.1 years. Road traffic accidents were the leading cause of trauma, 934 (85.6%). Intensive care unit patients exhibited higher ISS and lower RTS scores (P < 0.0001), indicating more severe injuries. Nonsurvivors showed higher ISS and NISS and lower RTS and TRISS scores. EMTRAS demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity than REMS, while TRISS proved the most effective in predicting trauma outcomes. Conclusions: REMS and EMTRAS had reasonable sensitivity and specificity but were less effective than traditional systems such as ISS, NISS, RTS, and TRISS. TRISS emerged as the most reliable tool for predicting outcomes, supporting its continued use as the gold standard in trauma assessment.