Skip to main content
. 2026 Feb 10;16(2):e110427. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-110427

Table 3. Comparison of predictive accuracy of rSIG and TRISS for in-hospital survival in the validation cohort.

No. of patients Optimal
cut-off point
Sensitivity, % Specificity, % PPV, % NPV, % AUC
(95% CI)
P value
All paediatric patients
 rSIG 2814 10.1 89.3 82.1 99.7 9.8 0.857 (0.796 to 0.918) 0.006
 Survival probability by TRISS methods 2814 50.0 99.3 48.7 99.3 50.0 0.740 (0.661 to 0.820)
Patients age 0–6
 rSIG 576 7.9 89.5 80.0 99.8 2.9 0.836 (0.640 to 1.000) 0.699
 Survival probability by TRISS methods 576 50.0 99.4 60.0 99.7 50.0 0.797 (0.557 to 1.000)
Patients age 7–12
 rSIG 908 11.0 91.1 91.7 99.9 15.7 0.914 (0.831 to 0.996) 0.033
 Survival probability by TRISS methods 908 50.0 99.6 41.7 99.2 55.6 0.706 (0.560 to 0.852)
Patients age 13–17
 rSIG 1330 11.9 88.2 86.4 99.6 14.5 0.873 (0.799 to 0.947) 0.016
 Survival probability by TRISS methods 1330 50.0 99.1 50.0 99.2 47.8 0.745 (0.638 to 0.852)

AUC, area under the curve; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; rSIG, revised Shock Index multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale; TRISS, Trauma and Injury Severity Score.