ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2014
A multi-centred audit of secondary spinal assessments in a trauma setting: are we ATLS compliant?
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2014. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe global incidence of spinal cord injuries varies with the developed world having improved survival and 1 year mortality in a poly-trauma setting. This improved survival has been estimated at 20 % in a recent Cochrane review of Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS).The aim of this audit is to evaluate the management of patients with suspected spinal cord injury by the trauma and orthopaedic team in three centres in South Wales.
methodsA retrospective case note review of the secondary survey was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients 18 years and above, with poly-trauma and presenting to Accident and Emergency department at the treating hospital. We used ATLS guidelines as an audit tool and reviewed the documentation of key components of the secondary assessment.
resultsForty-nine patients were included (29 males, 20 females) with an average age of 53.7 years (19-92 years). We found that completion of all components of the secondary survey for spinal injury was poor, 29 % receiving a digital per rectal examination despite suspected spinal injury. Paralysis level was not documented in 20.4 % of patients. Medical Research Council grade was only documented in 24.5 % although was assessed in 73.5 %. The secondary survey took place after 2 h in 54.6 % of patients.
conclusionWe found that the documentation of the performance of a secondary survey was poor. We found that most patients included in this study are not currently meeting the minimal standard suggested by the ATLS guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24306164What 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.