ArticleBMJ open2021
Developing a systematic approach for Population-based Injury Severity Assessment (PISA): a million-person survey in rural Bangladesh.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is currently no defined method for assessing injury severity using population-based data, which limits our understanding of the burden of non-fatal injuries and community-based approaches for primary prevention of injuries. This study describes a systematic approach, Population-based Injury Severity Assessment (PISA) index, for assessing injury severity at the population level.
methodsBased on the WHO International Classification of Functionality conceptual model on health and disability, eight indicators for assessing injury severity were defined. The eight indicators assessed anatomical, physiological, postinjury immobility, hospitalisation, surgical treatment, disability, duration of assisted living and days lost from work or school. Using a large population-based survey conducted in 2013 including 1.16 million individuals from seven subdistricts of rural Bangladesh, information on the eight indicators were derived for all non-fatal injury events, and these were summarised into a single injury severity index using a principal component analysis (PCA). Principal component loadings derived from the PCA were used to predict the severity (low, moderate, high) of non-fatal injuries, and were applied to the fatal injury data to assess the criterion validity of the index. The determinants of non-fatal injury severity were determined using ordered logistic regression.
resultsThere were 119 703 non-fatal injuries and 14% were classified as high severity based on the PISA index. The PISA index accurately predicted 82% of all fatal injuries as highly severe. Non-fatal injuries of high severity were frequent with unintentional poisoning (57%) and violence (35%). Injuries of high severity were commoner among males (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.21), adults 65 years and older (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.36), lower socioeconomic status and intentional injuries. Education was associated with reduced odds of high severe injuries.
conclusionThe PISA index provides a valid and systematic approach for assessing injury severity at the population level, and is relevant for improving the characterisation of the burden and epidemiology of injuries in non-health facility-based settings. Additional testing of the PISA index is needed to further establish its validity and reliability.
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.