Observational studyBMJ open2021
Prospective observational study to examine health-related quality of life and develop models to predict long-term patient-reported outcomes 6 months after hospital discharge with blunt thoracic injuries.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2021. 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.
- Predictors of chronic pain, chronic opioid use and neuropathic pain in Ukrainian military patients with isolated thoracic injuries sustained during the Russia-Ukraine conflict: a single-centre prospective observational study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Observational
- [Psychosocial care for relatives in the ICU: framework concept].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to examine the long-term outcomes and health-related quality of life in patients with blunt thoracic injuries over 6 months from hospital discharge and develop models to predict long-term patient-reported outcomes.
designA prospective observational study using longitudinal survey design.
settingThe study recruitment was undertaken at 12 UK hospitals which represented diverse geographical locations and covered urban, suburban and rural areas across England and Wales.
participants337 patients admitted to hospital with blunt thoracic injuries were recruited between June 2018-October 2020.
methodsParticipants completed a bank of two quality of life surveys (Short Form-12 (SF-12) and EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels) and two pain questionnaires (Brief Pain Inventory and painDETECT Questionnaire) at four time points over the first 6 months after discharge from hospital. A total of 211 (63%) participants completed the outcomes data at 6 months after hospital discharge. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Three outcomes were measured using pre-existing and validated patient-reported outcome measures. Outcomes included: Poor physical function (SF-12 Physical Component Score); chronic pain (Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity Score); and neuropathic pain (painDETECT Questionnaire).
resultsDespite a trend towards improving physical functional and pain at 6 months, outcomes did not return to participants perceived baseline level of function. At 6 months after hospital discharge, 37% (n=77) of participants reported poor physical function; 36.5% (n=77) reported a chronic pain state; and 22% (n=47) reported pain with a neuropathic component. Predictive models were developed for each outcome highlighting important data collection requirements for predicting long-term outcomes in this population. Model diagnostics including calibration and discrimination statistics suggested good model fit in this development cohort.
conclusionsThis study identified the recovery trajectories for patients with blunt thoracic injuries over the first 6 months after hospital discharge and present prognostic models for three important outcomes which after external validation could be used as clinical risk stratification scores.
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.