Diagnostic Accuracy of the Madras Head Injury Prognostication Scale (MHIPS) in Predicting Mortality among Traumatic Brain Injury Patients

Abstract

Background

Accurate prediction of outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is crucial for optimizing therapeutic interventions and improving patient survival rates.

Objectives

This article determines the diagnostic accuracy of Madras Head Injury Prognostication Scale (MHIPS) in predicting mortality among patients with TBI, and compares the performance of MHIPS scores with that of Corticosteroid Randomisation after Significant Head Injury (CRASH) and International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) scores.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective observational study conducted among patients (n = 100) with clinical evidence of TBI presenting to the Department of Emergency Medicine, R. L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Tamaka, Karnataka, India, between August 2023 and July 2024.

Results

Of the 100 patients, 92 patients (92.0%) were survivors of which 4 patients (4.0%) had disability and 8 patients died/nonsurvivors (8.0%). Age more than 40 years, higher heart rate, lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores, lower MHIPS scores, higher CRASH scores, and higher IMPACT scores were significantly (p < 0.05) associated with mortality among patients with TBI. However, gender, mode of injury, diagnosis, time to presentation, systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and respiratory rate did not vary significantly between nonsurvivors and survivors in the present study (p > 0.05). The mean (standard deviation) duration of ventilation among nonsurvivors was 3.3 (2.2), and that among survivors was 0.5 (1.1)—the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The area under the curve of MHIPS scores was 0.912, in comparison with 0.893 for CRASH scores and 0.927 for IMPACT scores (p < 0.05). The MHIPS scores, with a cutoff of 13.5, showed a sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 81.5%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 29.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.7%. The CRASH scores, with a cutoff of 5.5, demonstrated a sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 53.3%, PPV of 14.0%, and NPV of 98.0%. The IMPACT scores, with a cutoff of 8.5, had a sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 91.3%, PPV of 46.7%, and NPV of 98.8%. All three scoring systems showed statistically significant predictive accuracy.

Conclusion

MHIPS, CRASH, and IMPACT are effective tools for prognosticating mortality in TBI patients. MHIPS score offers simplicity and ease of use, making it valuable in resource-limited environments.

Keywords

Corticosteroid Randomisation after Significant Head Injury (CRASH) - diagnostic accuracy - International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) - Madras Head Injury Prognostication Scale (MHIPS) - traumatic brain injury (TBI)

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. Juni 2025

• References

• 1 Maas AIR, Menon DK, Adelson PD. et al; InTBIR Participants and Investigators. Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research. Lancet Neurol 2017; 16 (12) 987-1048
• 2 Jennett B. The Glasgow Coma Scale: history and current practice. Trauma 2002; 4: 91-103
• 3 Koome G, Thuita F, Egondi T, Atela M. Association between traumatic brain injury (TBI) patterns and mortality: a retrospective case-control study. F1000 Res 2021; 10: 795
• 4 Fu TS, Jing R, McFaull SR, Cusimano MD. Recent trends in hospitalization and in-hospital mortality associated with traumatic brain injury in Canada: a nationwide, population-based study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015; 79 (03) 449-454
• 5 Wang J, Yin MJ, Wen HC. Prediction performance of the machine learning model in predicting mortality risk in patients with traumatic brain injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2023; 23 (01) 142
• 6 Zuniga RDDR, Vieira RCA, Solla DJF. et al. Long-term outcome of traumatic brain injury patients with initial GCS of 3-5. World Neurosurg X 2024; 23: 100361
• 7 Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P. et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med 2008; 5 (08) e165 , discussion e165
• 8 Ramesh VG, Thirumaran KP, Raja MC. A new scale for prognostication in head injury. J Clin Neurosci 2008; 15 (10) 1110-1113 , discussion 1113–1114
• 9 Perel P, Arango M, Clayton T. et al; MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ 2008; 336 (7641) 425-429
• 10 Tsuchiya R, Ooigawa H, Kimura T. et al. Study of certain easily available biochemical markers in prognostication in severe traumatic brain injury requiring surgery. Surg Neurol Int 2023; 14: 410
• 11 Sivashankar S A, Swamiyappan SS, Visweswaran V. et al. Biochemical and radiological factors for prognostication of traumatic brain injury: an institutional experience. Cureus 2023; 15 (06) e40999
• 12 Srinivasan US. A mathematical model for predicting the outcome in moderate head injury. Neurol India 2006; 54 (01) 28-32
• 13 Hukkelhoven CW, Rampen AJ, Maas AI. et al. Some prognostic models for traumatic brain injury were not valid. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59 (02) 132-143
• 14 Dijkland SA, Foks KA, Polinder S. et al. Prognosis in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of contemporary models and validation studies. J Neurotrauma 2020; 37 (01) 1-13
• 15 Perel P, Edwards P, Wentz R, Roberts I. Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006; 6: 38
• 16 McIntyre A, Mehta S, Aubut J, Dijkers M, Teasell RW. Mortality among older adults after a traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis. Brain Inj 2013; 27 (01) 31-40
• 17 Reith FC, Van den Brande R, Synnot A, Gruen R, Maas AI. The reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42 (01) 3-15
• 18 Moppett IK. Traumatic brain injury: assessment, resuscitation and early management. Br J Anaesth 2007; 99 (01) 18-31
• 19 Teasdale G, Maas A, Lecky F, Manley G, Stocchetti N, Murray G. The Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 years: standing the test of time. Lancet Neurol 2014; 13 (08) 844-854
• 20 Manley GT, Maas AI. Traumatic brain injury: an international knowledge-based approach. JAMA 2013; 310 (05) 473-474
• 21 Dijkland SA, Helmrich IRAR, Nieboer D. et al; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Outcome prediction after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of two established prognostic models in 1742 European patients. J Neurotrauma 2021; 38 (10) 1377-1388
• 22 Retel Helmrich IRA, Lingsma HF, Turgeon AF, Yamal JM, Steyerberg EW. Prognostic research in traumatic brain injury: markers, modeling, and methodological principles. J Neurotrauma 2021; 38 (18) 2502-2513
• 23 Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, van der Windt DA. et al; PROGRESS Group. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med 2013; 10 (02) e1001381