Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 19, 2026
Anterior Segment Organ Culture Platform for Tracking Open Globe Injuries and Therapeutic Performance
Published on: August 25, 2021
Validation and reclassification of MGAP and GAP in hospital settings using data from the Trauma Audit and Research
Rebecca M Hasler1, Nicole Mealing, Hans-Ulrich Rothen
1From the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) (R.M.H., F.L.), Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom; and Departments of Emergency Medicine (R.M.H.), and Intensive Care Medicine (H.-U.R.), Inselspital, and Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine and CTU Bern (N.M., M.C., P.J.), University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Background:
Recently, two simple clinical scores were published to predict survival in trauma patients. Both scores may successfully guide major trauma triage, but neither has been independently validated in a hospital setting.
Methods:
This is a cohort study with 30-day mortality as the primary outcome to validate two new trauma scores-Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Age, and Pressure (MGAP) score and GCS, Age and Pressure (GAP) score-using data from the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network. First, an assessment of discrimination, using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and calibration, comparing mortality rates with those originally published, were performed. Second, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios for prognostic score performance. Third, we propose new cutoffs for the risk categories.
Results:
A total of 79,807 adult (≥16 years) major trauma patients (2000-2010) were included; 5,474 (6.9%) died. Mean (SD) age was 51.5 (22.4) years, median GCS score was 15 (interquartile range, 15-15), and median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 9 (interquartile range, 9-16). More than 50% of the patients had a low-risk GAP or MGAP score (1% mortality). With regard to discrimination, areas under the ROC curve were 87.2% for GAP score (95% confidence interval, 86.7-87.7) and 86.8% for MGAP score (95% confidence interval, 86.2-87.3). With regard to calibration, 2,390 (3.3%), 1,900 (28.5%), and 1,184 (72.2%) patients died in the low, medium, and high GAP risk categories, respectively. In the low- and medium-risk groups, these were almost double the previously published rates. For MGAP, 1,861 (2.8%), 1,455 (15.2%), and 2,158 (58.6%) patients died in the low-, medium-, and high-risk categories, consonant with results originally published. Reclassifying score point cutoffs improved likelihood ratios, sensitivity and specificity, as well as areas under the ROC curve.
Conclusion:
We found both scores to be valid triage tools to stratify emergency department patients, according to their risk of death. MGAP calibrated better, but GAP slightly improved discrimination. The newly proposed cutoffs better differentiate risk classification and may therefore facilitate hospital resource allocation.
Level Of Evidence:
Prognostic study, level II.
