ArticleJournal of trauma management & outcomes2014
Routinely recorded versus dedicated time registrations during trauma work-up.
Article in Journal of trauma management & outcomes, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince time intervals are used to determine quality of trauma care, it is relevant to know how reliable those intervals can be measured. The aim of our study was to assess the reliability of time intervals as recorded in our hospital databases. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe conducted a prospective study on time intervals in our level-1 trauma centre and compared those with the routinely recorded data from February 2012 to June 2012. A convenience sample of all trauma patients admitted to our trauma room was included. The routinely recorded time intervals were retrieved from computerised hospital databases. The dedicated time registration was done on a standardised form on which five time intervals considered clinically relevant were evaluated for each patient by a dedicated person: trauma room time, time to start CT, imaging time, time from trauma room to ICU and time from trauma room to intervention.
resultsIn a sample of 100 trauma patients dedicated registered trauma room time was median 47 minutes (IQR = 32-63), compared to 42 minutes (IQR = 28-56) in routinely recorded in hospital databases (P < 0.001). Time to start of CT scanning differed significantly as well, with again an increased time interval measured dedicatedly (median 20 minutes (IQR = 15-28)) compared to the routinely recorded time registration (median 13 minutes (IQR = 4-21)). The other time intervals recorded did not differ between the dedicated and routinely recorded registration. Bland-Altman plots also showed that there is considerable discrepancy between the two measurement methods with wide limits of agreement.
conclusionThis study shows that routinely recorded time intervals in the trauma care setting differ statistically significant from dedicatedly registered intervals.
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.