Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35701441›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

A multicentre cross-sectional survey study on acute wound classification in the emergency department and its interobserver variability.

Lisanne van Gennip, Frederike J C Haverkamp, Özcan Sir, Edward C T H Tan

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lisanne van GennipDepartment of Surgery, Radboudumc, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Lisanne.vanGennip@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9760-0165
Frederike J C HaverkampDepartment of Surgery, Radboudumc, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4279-5916
Özcan SirDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Radboudumc, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2990-7971
Edward C T H TanDepartment of Surgery, Radboudumc, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9978-249X
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Annually, a vast number of patients visits the emergency department for acute wounds. Many wound classification systems exist, but often these were not originally designed for acute wounds. This study aimed to assess the most frequently used classifications for acute wounds in the Netherlands and the interobserver variability of the Gustilo Anderson wound classification (GAWC) and Red Cross wound classification (RCWC) in acute wounds. This multicentre cross-sectional survey study employed an online oral questionnaire. We contacted emergency physicians from eleven hospitals in the south-eastern part of the Netherlands and identified the currently applied classifications. Participants classified ten fictitious wounds by applying the GAWC and RCWC. Afterwards, they rated the user-friendliness of these classifications. We examined the interobserver variability of both classifications using a Fleiss' kappa analysis, with a subdivision in RCWC grades and types representing wound severity and injured tissue structures. The study included twenty emergency physicians from eight hospitals. Fifty percent of the participants reported using a classification for acute wounds, mostly the GAWC. The interobserver variability of the GAWC (κ = 0.46; 95% CI 0.44-0.49) and RCWC grades (κ = 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59) was moderate, and it was good for the RCWC types (κ = 0.69; 95% CI 0.66-0.73). Participants considered both classifications helpful for acute wound assessment when the emergency physician was less experienced, despite a moderate user-friendliness. The GAWC was only of additional value in wounds with fractures, whereas the RCWC's additional value in acute wound assessment was independent of the presence of a fracture. Emergency physicians are reserved to use a classification for acute wound assessment. The interobserver variability of the GAWC and RCWC in acute wounds is promising, and both classifications are easy to apply. However, their user-friendliness is moderate. It is recommended to apply the GAWC to acute wounds with underlying fractures and the RCWC to major traumatic injuries. Awareness should be raised of existing wound classifications, specifically among less experienced healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNetherlandsObserver VariationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID35701441
PMCPMC9196857
OpenAlexW4282945643

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.