Dataset Information

Effectiveness of trauma care systems at different stages of development in reducing mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The introduction of trauma systems that began in the 1970s resulted in improved trauma care and a decreased rate of morbidity and mortality of trauma patients. Worldwide, little is known about the effectiveness of trauma care system at different stages of development, from establishing a trauma centre, to implementing a trauma system and as trauma systems mature. The objective of this study is to extract and analyse data from research that evaluates mortality rates according to different stages of trauma system development globally.

Methods and analysis

The proposed review will comply with the checklist of the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis'. In this review, only peer-reviewed articles written in English, human-related studies and published between January 2000 and December 2020 will be included. Articles will be retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Additional articles will be identified from other sources such as references of included articles and author lists. Two independent authors will assess the eligibility of studies as well as critically appraise and assess the methodological quality of all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool. Two independent authors will extract the data to minimise errors and bias during the process of data extraction using an extraction tool developed by the authors. For analysis calculation, effect sizes will be expressed as risk ratios or ORs for dichotomous data or weighted (or standardised) mean differences and 95% CIs for continuous data in this systematic review.

Ethics and dissemination

This systematic review will use secondary data only, therefore, research ethics approval is not required. The results from this study will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication and we will present our findings at national and international conferences.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019142842.

SUBMITTER: Alharbi RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8183269 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTraumatic injury remains the leading cause of death, with more than five million deaths every year. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness in reducing mortality of trauma care systems at different stages of development. The objective of this study was to review the literature and examine differences in mortality associated with different stages of trauma system development.MethodA systematic review of peer-reviewed population-based studies retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Additional studies were identified from references of articles, through database searching, and author lists. Articles written in English and published between 2000 and 2020 were included. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed by two independent reviewers. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 52 studies with a combined 1,106,431 traumatic injury patients were included for quantitative analysis. The overall mortality rate was 6.77% (n = 74,930). When patients were treated in a non-trauma centre compared to a trauma centre, the pooled statistical odds of mortality were reduced (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.69-0.79]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a non-trauma system compared to a trauma system the odds of mortality rates increased (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.10-1.24]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a post-implementation/initial system compared to a mature system, odds of mortality were significantly higher (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.37-1.55]; p < 0.001).ConclusionThe present study highlights that the survival of traumatic injured patients varies according to the stage of trauma system development in which the patient was treated. The analysis indicates a significant reduction in mortality following the introduction of the trauma system which is further enhanced as the system matures. These results provide evidence to support efforts to, firstly, implement trauma systems in countries currently without and, secondly, to enhance existing systems by investing in system development.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42019142842 .

Project description:BACKGROUND:Heart failure (HF) is a complex chronic condition, leading to frequent hospitalization, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. Current guidelines recommend that multidisciplinary care be provided in specialized HF clinics. A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of these clinics; however, there is a wide range in the services provided across different clinics. This network meta-analysis will aim to identify the aspects of HF clinic care that are associated with the best outcomes: a reduction in mortality, hospitalization, and visits to emergency department (ED) and improvements to quality of life. METHODS:Relevant electronic databases will be systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Controlled trials and observational cohort studies of adult (??18?years of age) patients will be eligible for inclusion if they evaluate at least one component of guideline-based HF clinic care and report all-cause or HF-related mortality, hospitalizations, or ED visits or health-related quality of life assessed after a minimum follow-up of 30?days. Both controlled trials and observational studies will be included to allow us to compare the efficacy of the interventions in an ideal context versus their effectiveness in the real world. Two reviewers will independently perform both title and abstract full-text screenings and data abstraction. Study quality will be assessed through a modified Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. The strength of evidence will be assessed using a modified Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Network meta-analysis methods will be applied to synthesize the evidence across included studies. To contrast findings between study designs, data from RCTs will be analyzed separately from non-randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. We will estimate both the probability that a particular component of care is the most effective and treatment effects for specified combinations of care. DISCUSSION:To our knowledge, this will be the first study to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the different components of care offered in HF clinics. The findings from this systematic review will provide valuable insight about which components of HF clinic care are associated with improved outcomes, potentially informing clinical guidelines as well as the design of future care interventions in dedicated HF clinics. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017058003.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of trauma systems in many high-income countries over the last 50 years has led to important reductions in injury mortality and disability in many healthcare jurisdictions. Injury organizations including the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Association of Canada as well as the World Health Organization provide consensus-based recommendations on resources and processes for optimal injury care. Many hospitals treating trauma patients seek verification to demonstrate that they meet these recommendations. This process may be labeled differently across jurisdictions. In Canada for example, it is called accreditation, but it has the same objective and very similar modalities. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of trauma center verification for improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in injury care. METHODS:We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between trauma center verification and hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as morbidity, resource utilization, and processes of care (secondary outcomes). We will search CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthStar, MEDLINE, and ProQuest databases, as well as key injury organization websites for gray literature. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. We are planning to conduct a meta-analysis if feasible based on the number of included studies and their heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of cumulative evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. DISCUSSION:This review will provide a synthesis of the body of evidence on trauma center verification effectiveness. Results could reinforce current verification modalities and may suggest ways to optimize them. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an international clinical conference. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018107083.

Project description:Background:Trauma systems have been shown to save lives in military and civilian settings, but their use by humanitarians in conflict settings has been more limited. During the Battle of Mosul (October 2016-July 2017), trauma care for injured civilians was provided through a novel approach in which humanitarian actors were organized into a trauma pathway involving echelons of care, a key component of military trauma systems. A better understanding of this approach may help inform trauma care delivery in future humanitarian responses in conflicts. Methodology:A qualitative study design was used to examine the Mosul civilian trauma response. From August-December 2017, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders (n?=?54) representing nearly two dozen organizations that directly participated in or had first-hand knowledge of the response. Source document reviews were also conducted. Responses were analyzed in accordance with a published framework on civilian battlefield trauma systems, focusing on whether the response functioned as an integrated trauma system. Opportunities for improvement were identified. Results:The Mosul civilian trauma pathway was implemented as a chain of care for civilian casualties with three successive echelons (trauma stabilization points, field hospitals, and referral hospitals). Coordinated by the World Health Organization, it comprised a variety of actors, including non-governmental organizations, civilian institutions, and at least one private medical company. Stakeholders generally felt that this approach improved access to trauma care for civilians injured near the frontlines compared to what would have been available. Several trauma systems elements such as transportation, data collection, field coordination, and post-operative rehabilitative care might have been further developed to support a more integrated system. Conclusions:The Mosul trauma pathway evolved to address critical gaps in trauma care during the Battle of Mosul. It adapted the concept of echelons of care from western military practice to push humanitarian actors closer to the frontlines and improve access to care for injured civilians. Although efforts were made to incorporate some of the integrative components (e.g. evidence-based pre-hospital care, transportation, and data collection) that have enabled recent achievements by military trauma systems, many of these proved difficult to implement in the Mosul context. Further discussion and research are needed to determine how trauma systems insights can be adapted in future humanitarian responses given resource, logistical, and security constraints, as well as to clarify the responsibilities of various actors.

Project description:ObjectiveThe rehabilitation of trauma patients in primary care is challenging, and there are no guidelines for optimal treatment. Also, the organization of care is not well-structured. The Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) has been developed in the Netherlands, aiming to improve patient outcomes by optimizing the organization and the quality of the rehabilitation process in primary care. A recent feasibility study showed that implementation of the TTCM at a Dutch Level 1 trauma center was feasible, patient outcomes were improved, and costs were reduced. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TTCM compared to the usual care in a multicenter trial.MethodsA multicenter trial with a controlled before-and-after design will be performed at 10 hospitals in the Netherlands. First, participating hospitals will include 322 patients in the control group, receiving usual care as provided in these specific hospitals. Subsequently, the TTCM will be implemented in all participating hospitals, and hospitals will include an additional 322 patients in the intervention group. The TTCM consists of a multidisciplinary team at the outpatient clinic (trauma surgeon and hospital-based physical therapist), an educated and trained network of primary care trauma physical therapists, and structural communication between them. Co-primary outcomes will investigate generic and disease-specific, health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes will include pain, patient satisfaction, perceived recovery, and patient-reported physical functioning. For the economic evaluation, societal and healthcare costs will be measured. Measurements will take place at baseline and after 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 9 months. Analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. Missing data will be handled using longitudinal data analyses in the effect analyses and by multivariate imputation in the economic evaluation.ConclusionThis trial with a controlled before-and-after design will give insight into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TTCM in a multicenter trial.