ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2017
Epidemiological comparison between the Navarra Major Trauma Registry and the German Trauma Registry (TR-DGU®).
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2017. 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.
- [Analysis of serious trauma injury patterns in Navarre (Spain) (2010-2019)].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2024Article
- Ten-year trends of adult trauma patients in Central Denmark Region from 2010 to 2019: A retrospective cohort study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- Short-term outcome and characteristics of critical care for nontrauma patients in the emergency department.Der Anaesthesist · 2022Article
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
backgroundInternational benchmarking can help identify trauma system performance issues and determine the extent to which other countries also experience these. When problems are identified, countries can look to high performers for insight into possible responses. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment and outcome of severely injured patients in Germany and Navarra, Spain.
methodsData collected, from 2010 to 2013, in the Navarra Major Trauma Registry (NMTR) and the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) were compared. Both registries followed the Utstein Trauma Template (European Core Dataset) for documentation of trauma patients. Adult patients (≥ 16 years) with New Injury Severity Score (NISS) being >15 points were included in this study. Patients who had been admitted to the hospital later than 24 h after the trauma, had been pronounced dead before hospital arrival, or had been injured by hanging, drowning or burns, were excluded. Demographic data, injury data, prehospital data, hospital treatment data, time intervals, and outcome were compared. The expected mortality was calculated using the Revised Injury Severity Classification score II (RISC II).
resultsA total of 646 and 43,110 patients were included in the outcome analysis from NMTR and TR-DGU, respectively. The difference between observed and expected mortality was -0.4% (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 0.97; 95% CI 0.93-1.04) in Germany and 1.6% (SMR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14) in Navarra. Differences in the characteristics of trauma patients and trauma systems between the regions were noted.
conclusionThe higher observed mortality in Navarra is consistent with the epidemiological characteristics of its population. However, to improve the quality of trauma care in the Navarra trauma system, certain improvements are necessary. There were less young adults with severe injuries in Navarra than in Germany. It is possible to compare data of severely injured patients from different countries if standardized registries are used.
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.