ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2012
Ground-level falls: 9-year cumulative experience in a regionalized trauma system.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ground-level falls (GLFs) are the leading cause of nonfatal hospitalized injuries in the US. We hypothesized that risk-adjusted mortality would not vary between levels of trauma center verification if regional triage functioned appropriately. Data were collected from our regional trauma registry for the years 2001 through 2009. A multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model was developed to compare risk-adjusted mortality rates by trauma center level and by year. GLF patients numbered 8202 over 9 years with 2.1% mortality. Mean age was 74.5 years and mean probability of death was 0.021 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.020-0.021). The level I center-treated patients had the highest probability of death (0.033) compared to levels II and III/IV patients (0.023 and 0.018, respectively; P < 0.001), with the highest mortality (6.0%, 3.1%, and 1.1% for levels I, II, and III/IV; P < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio of mortality was lowest at the level I center (0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91), while no difference existed between level II (1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.51) and level III/IV centers (1.22; 95% CI, 0.90-1.66). The 95% CIs for risk-adjusted mortality by year overlapped the 1.0 reference line for each year from 2002 to 2009. In conclusion, regional risk-adjusted mortality for GLF has varied little since 2002. More study is warranted to understand the lower risk-adjusted GLF mortality at the level I center for this growing patient population.
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.