Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24279612›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2013

Developing templates for uniform data documentation and reporting in critical care using a modified nominal group technique.

Hans Morten Lossius, Andreas J Krüger, Kjetil Gorseth Ringdal, Stephen J M Sollid, David J Lockey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Quality Indicators for Avalanche Victim Management and Rescue.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  5. Template for documenting and reporting data in physician-staffed pre-hospital services: a consensus-based update.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Developing quality indicators for physician-staffed emergency medical services: a consensus process.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2017
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Editorial: facts, figures and the future.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2015
    Article
  13. A consensus based template for reporting of pre-hospital major incident medical management.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hans Morten LossiusDepartment of Research and Development, Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Holterveien 24, Drøbak 1441, Norway. hans.morten.lossius@snla.no.
Andreas J Krüger
Kjetil Gorseth Ringdal
Stephen J M Sollid
David J Lockey

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice in trauma and critical care is predominantly derived from quantitative observational cohort studies based on data retrospectively collected from medical records. Such data create uncontrolled bias and influence external and internal validity, thereby hindering systematic reviews. Templates or standards for uniform documenting and scientific reporting may result in high quality and internationally standardised data being collected on a regular basis, enhance large international multi-centre studies, and increase the quality of evidence. Templates or standards may be developed using multidisciplinary expert panel consensus methods.We present three consensus processes aimed at developing templates for documenting and scientific reporting. We discuss the advantages, limitations, and possible future improvements of our method.

methodsThe template preparation was based on expert panel consensus derived through a modified nominal group technique (NGT) method that combined the traditional Delphi method with the traditional NGT method in a four-step process.

resultsStandard templates for documenting and scientific reporting were developed for major trauma, pre-hospital advanced airway handling, and physician-staffed pre-hospital EMS. All templates were published in scientific journals.

conclusionOur modified NGT consensus method can successfully be used to establish templates for reporting trauma and critical care data. When used in a structured manner, the method uses recognised experts to achieve consensus, but based on our experiences, we recommend the consensus process to be followed by feasibility, reliability, and validity testing.

Indexed as

ChecklistConsensusCritical CareGroup ProcessesQuality ControlDelphi TechniqueDocumentationHumansNorwayWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID24279612
PMCPMC4222125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.