Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 160

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Revalidation and update of the TASH‐Score: a scoring system to predict the probability for massive transfusion as a surrogate for life‐threatening haemorrhage after severe injury

Maegele, M., Lefering, R., Wafaisade, A., Theodorou, P., Wutzler, S., Fischer, P., Bouillon, B., Paffrath, T., the Trauma Registry of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (TR‐DGU)·2011·Vox Sanguinis

Abstract

Background The Trauma Associated Severe Haemorrhage (TASH)‐Score has been recognized as an easy‐to‐calculate scoring system to predict the probability for massive transfusion (MT) as a surrogate for life‐threatening haemorrhage after injury. Changes with respect to management and outcome of these patients over time prompted a revalidation and an update of the TASH‐Score. Methods The performance of the TASH‐Score developed from the 1993–2003 TR‐DGU database (Trauma Registry Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie/German Trauma Society) was revalidated on 5834 datasets from the 2004–2007 TR‐DGU database with respect to discrimination, precision and calibration. The performance of the TASH‐Score applied onto the 2004–2007 TR‐DGU database was compared to its initial performance, and the logistic function to calculate the probability for MT was modified for score adjustment. Results/Conclusions When the original TASH‐Score was applied onto the 2004–2007 TR‐DGU database, a slight increase in discrimination was observed while precision was considerably lower. The predicted rate for MT within the development dataset was 13·9% while the observed incidence was 14·1%. In contrast, the predicted rate for MT within the revalidation dataset was 11·7%, while the observed rate was 8·4%. The logistic function to calculate MT probability was modified, and the TASH‐Score was again evaluated against the most recent TR‐DGU 2004–2007 database. The high performance of the score was not only restored but enhanced reflected by an increased ROC/AUC of 0·905. The score can be calculated quickly upon arrival of the patient in the emergency department and may be supportive to correct coagulopathy, to activate logistics and for research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2010.01387.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 160

Metadata

Authors
Maegele, M., Lefering, R., Wafaisade, A., Theodorou, P., Wutzler, S., Fischer, P., Bouillon, B., Paffrath, T., & the Trauma Registry of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (TR‐DGU)
Venue
Vox Sanguinis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08-24
Volume
100
Issue
2
Pages
231-238
ISSN
  • 0042-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0410
OpenAlex
W2103297882
Cited by
160
References
1
FWCI
11.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revalidation and update of the TASH‐Score: a scoring system to predict the probability for massive transfusion as a surrogate for life‐threatening haemorrhage after severe injury. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1423-0410.2010.01387.x
The paper
Maegele, M., Lefering, R., Wafaisade, A., Theodorou, P., Wutzler, S., Fischer, P., Bouillon, B., Paffrath, T., & the Trauma Registry of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (TR‐DGU). (2011). Revalidation and update of the TASH‐Score: a scoring system to predict the probability for massive transfusion as a surrogate for life‐threatening haemorrhage after severe injury. Vox Sanguinis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1423-0410.2010.01387.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.