ArticleInjury2018
Benchmarking emergency department thoracotomy: Using trauma video review to generate procedural norms.
Article in Injury, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Pooled it
- Under the lens: utilizing trauma video review for performance improvement, quality improvement and resident and fellow education.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Review
- Standardized data definitions for adult trauma video review: an expert consensus report.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
- Enhanced Trauma Video Review With Computer Vision: Trauma Resuscitation Phase Segmentation and Procedure Detection.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Changes in multidisciplinary perceptions of trauma video review following implementation of a novel program: let us go to the tape.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- Implementing the IMIST-AMBO tool for paramedic to trauma team handovers: a video review analysis.CJEM · 2023Observational
- Time is tissue: Barriers to timely transfusion after pediatric injury.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2023Review
- Article
- Leveraging Telemedicine for Quality Improvement Video Review of Critical ICU Events: A Novel Multidisciplinary Form of Education.Critical care explorations · 2021Article
- Staff perceptions of the implementation of a trauma video review program at a level I trauma center.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Video laryngoscopy is associated with improved first-pass intubation success compared with direct laryngoscopy in emergency department trauma patients.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
- Team Assessment and Decision Making Is Associated With Outcomes: A Trauma Video Review Analysis.The Journal of surgical research · 2020Article
- Trauma video review utilization: A survey of practice in the United States.American journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Supporting the Educational, Research, and Clinical Care Goals of the Academic Trauma Center: Video Review for Trauma Resuscitation.JAMA surgery · 2019Article
- Intraoperative REBOA: an analysis of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma AORTA registry.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEmergency department thoracotomy (EDT) must be rapid and well-executed. Currently there are no defined benchmarks for EDT procedural milestones. We hypothesized that trauma video review (TVR) can be used to define the 'normative EDT' and generate procedural benchmarks. As a secondary aim, we hypothesized that data collected by TVR would have less missingness and bias than data collected by review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR).
methodsWe used continuously recording video to review all EDTs performed at our centre during the study period. Using skin incision as start time, we defined four procedural milestones for EDT: 1. Decompression of the right chest (tube thoracostomy, finger thoracostomy, or clamshell thoracotomy with transverse sternotomy performed in conjunction with left anterolateral thoracotomy) 2. Retractor deployment 3. Pericardiotomy 4. Aortic Cross-clamp. EDTs with any milestone time ≥ 75
results44 EDTs were included from the study period. Patients had a median age of 30 [IQR 25-44] and were predominantly African-American (95%) males (93%) with penetrating trauma (95%). From skin incision, median times in minutes to milestones were as follows: right chest decompression: 2.11 [IQR 0.68-2.83], retractor deployment 1.35 [IQR 0.96-1.85], pericardiotomy 2.35 [IQR 1.85-3.75], aortic cross-clamp 3.71 [IQR 2.83-5.77]. In total, 28/44 (64%) of EDTs were either high outliers for one or more benchmarks or had milestones that were omitted. For all milestones, rates of missingness for TVR data were lower than EMR data (p < 0.001).
conclusionsVideo review can be used to define normative times for the procedural milestones of EDT. Steps exceeding the 75
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.