Comparison of Trauma Scoring Systems for Predicting Mortality in Emergency Department Patients with Traffic-Related Multiple Trauma

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Trauma scoring systems are essential tools for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with multiple injuries. This study aimed to compare the performance of various anatomical and physiological scoring systems in predicting mortality among patients admitted to the emergency department following traffic accidents. <b>Methods:</b> In this prospective observational study, trauma patients presenting with traffic-related injuries were evaluated using seven scoring systems: ISS, NISS, AIS, GCS, RTS, TRISS, and APACHE II. Demographic data, clinical findings, and laboratory values were recorded. The prognostic performance of each score was assessed using ROC curve analysis, and diagnostic metrics including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated. <b>Results:</b> Among 554 patients included in the study, the overall mortality rate was 2%. The TRISS and GCS scores demonstrated the highest predictive performance, each with an AUC of 0.98, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity exceeding 93%. APACHE II followed closely with an AUC of 0.97, also achieving 100% sensitivity. NISS (AUC = 0.92) and ISS (AUC = 0.91) were effective anatomical scores, while RTS showed moderate predictive value (AUC = 0.90). Strong correlations were noted between ISS, NISS, and AIS (Rho > 0.85), while RTS was negatively correlated with these anatomical scores. All scoring systems showed statistically significant associations with mortality. <b>Conclusions:</b> TRISS, GCS, and APACHE II were the most effective trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality among emergency department patients. While complex models offer higher accuracy, simpler scores such as RTS and GCS remain valuable for rapid triage. The integration of both anatomical and physiological parameters may enhance early risk stratification and support timely decision-making in trauma care.