ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2019
Patient experience of spinal immobilisation after trauma.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic potential of placenta-derived stem cells cultivated on noggin-loaded nanochitosan/polypyrrole-alginate conductive scaffold to restore spinal cord injury.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Article
- Neuronal regeneration after injury: a new perspective on gene therapy.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Recent advances in lipid nanovesicles for targeted treatment of spinal cord injury.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Vacuum mattress or long spine board: which method of spinal stabilisation in trauma patients is more time consuming? A simulation study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal immobilisation of blunt trauma victims with potential spinal cord injury is considered standard of care. The traditional management has, however, been increasingly questioned and concerns about harm have been raised. Few studies have described the perspective of the trauma patient regarding the spinal immobilisation. The objective of this study was therefore to evaluate the patient experience of immobilisation after trauma.
methodsWe prospectively screened adult trauma patients admitted to a level 1 trauma centre for eligibility. We included adult trauma patients who had been, and remembered being, immobilised for spinal protection with a cervical collar and a spine board prehospitally or upon arrival at the trauma centre. A semi-structured interview was conducted 2 to 72 h after admission either in person or by telephone.
resultsOne hundred and fourteen patients were eligible for inclusion based on the patient charts. Out of 98 patients assessed for participation, 48 (49%) had no memory of being immobilised. We thus included 50 patients with a median age of 37 years (IQR: 26-60) of whom 38 (76%) were men. The median injury severity score was 9 (IQR: 3-15) and the median time with a cervical collar from initial application to in-hospital removal or until the interview was given was 91 min (IQR: 72-136). Nineteen patients (38%) reported discomfort and 12 patients (24%) experienced pain related to the immobilisation. Forty patients (80%) reported a sense of protection related to the immobilisation.
conclusionDiscomfort related to spinal immobilisation was reported in 38% of trauma patients. However, a sense of protection was a recurring theme in 80% of the trauma patients, who recalled being immobilised. Nearly half of the awake trauma patients had no memory of being immobilised.
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.