Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30870451›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

The development and internal validation of a model to predict functional recovery after trauma.

Max W de Graaf, Inge H F Reininga, Erik Heineman, Mostafa El Moumni

Abstract readClinical TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Is patient-reported outcome after treatment of unstable pelvic ring injuries related to pelvic symmetry? A prospective study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  4. Prediction of recovery in trauma patients using Latent Markov models.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
  5. Observational
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

4 authors.

Max W de GraafDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2588-5154
Inge H F ReiningaDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Erik HeinemanDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Mostafa El MoumniDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop and internally validate the PROgnosis of functional recovery after Trauma (PRO-Trauma) prediction model.

designA prospective single-center longitudinal cohort study. Patients were assessed at 6 weeks and 12 months post-injury.

methodsPatients that presented at the emergency department with an acute traumatic injury, were prompted for participation. Patients that completed the assessments at 6 weeks and 12 months post injury were included. Exclusion criteria: age < 18, age > 65, pathologic fractures, injuries that resulted in severe neurologic deficits. The predicted outcome, functional recovery, was defined as a Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA-NL) Problems with Daily Activities (PDA) subscale ≤ 12.2 points at 12 months post-injury (Dutch population norm). Predictors were: gender, age, living with partner, number of chronic health conditions, SMFA-NL PDA score 6 weeks post-injury, ICU admission, length of stay in hospital, injury severity score, occurrence of complications and treatment type. All predictors were obtained before 6 weeks post-injury. Missing data were multiply imputed. Predictor variables were selected using backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression. Hosmer-Lemeshow tests were used to evaluate calibration. Bootstrap resampling was used to internally validate the final model.

resultsA total of 246 patients were included, of which 104 (44%) showed functional recovery. The predictors in the final PRO-Trauma model were: living with partner, the number of chronic health conditions, SMFA-NL PDA subscale score at 6 weeks post-injury and length of stay in hospital. The apparent R2 was 0.33 [0.33;0.34], the c-statistic was 0.79 [0.79;0.80]. Hosmer-Lemeshow test indicated good calibration (p = 0.92). Optimism-corrected R2 was 0.28 [0.27;0.29] and the optimism-corrected Area Under the Curve was 0.77 [0.77;0.77].

conclusionThe PRO-Trauma prediction model can be used to obtain valid predictions of attaining functional recovery after trauma at 12 months post-injury. The PRO-Trauma prediction model showed acceptable calibration and discrimination.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalRecovery of FunctionAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansInjury Severity ScoreLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesTrauma CentersWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID30870451
PMCPMC6417777

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.