ArticleIntensive care medicine2009
Specialist team retrieval of head injured patients: fact, fiction, or formula?
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of establishing a trauma center on the mortality rate among injured pediatric patients in Japan.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Correlation between Hospital Volume of Severely Injured Patients and In-Hospital Mortality of Severely Injured Pediatric Patients in Japan: A Nationwide 5-Year Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- In-Hospital Mortality Risk of Transcatheter Arterial Embolization for Patients with Severe Blunt Trauma: A Nationwide Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis feasibility study aimed to determine the maximum theoretical distance the Edinburgh Paediatric Retrieval Team (EPRT) could travel to retrieve head injured children without additional delay in reaching definitive care.
designA prospective audit was conducted over 2 years to determine the current practice for paediatric head injury transfers (stabilisation, referral, and transfer time) undertaken by primary hospital staff, and the performance (mobilisation and travel time) of the EPRT. A novel formula was devised and used to determine the theoretical maximum radius within which the EPRT could reach a referring hospital during their stabilisation of head injured patients. MEASUREMENTS AND
resultsDuring the study period, 27 head injured patients were transferred to our unit by road and the EPRT conducted 194 road retrievals. The median stabilisation time for the head injured patients was 3.6 h. Median time to refer these patients to neurosurgical services was 1 h after presenting to primary hospitals. Median mobilisation time for EPRT was 1 h. Using our novel formula, 67 miles was the theoretical maximum radius within which the EPRT could reach a referring hospital during their stabilisation of head injured patients.
conclusionsSpecialist team retrieval of paediatric head injury is a possibility, but not without significant organisational changes such as availability of second teams, early referral of patients and utilisation of the mobilisation time as a cancellation window. Our novel formula offers other teams a starting point to assess their own performance and to develop services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.