Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35725580›Full record

ReviewScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2022

A Delphi study of rescue and clinical subject matter experts on the extrication of patients following a motor vehicle collision.

Tim Nutbeam, Rob Fenwick, Jason E Smith, Mike Dayson, Brian Carlin, Mark Wilson, Lee Wallis, Willem Stassen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Optimising the care of the trapped patient following a motor vehicle collision: A UK-Based Delphi consensus study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Vehicle extrication in road traffic crashes: a descriptive analysis of an advanced medical rescue service in South Africa.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

8 authors.

Tim NutbeamEmergency Department, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK. timnutbeam@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0814-9240
Rob FenwickEmergency Department, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, UK.
Jason E SmithEmergency Department, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK.
Mike DaysonFormer Fire Officer (Research), National Fire Chiefs Council, Birmingham, UK.
Brian CarlinAssociation for Spinal Injury Research, Rehabilitation and Reintegration, Department of Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Science, University College London, London, UK.
Mark WilsonImperial Neurotrauma Centre, Imperial College, London, UK.
Lee WallisDivision of Emergency Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Willem StassenDivision of Emergency Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 1.3 million people die each year globally as a direct result of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). Following an MVC some patients will remain trapped in their vehicle; these patients have worse outcomes and may require extrication. Following new evidence, updated multidisciplinary guidance for extrication is needed.

methodsThis Delphi study has been developed, conducted and reported to CREDES standards. A literature review identified areas of expertise and appropriate individuals were recruited to a Steering Group. The Steering Group formulated initial statements for consideration. Stakeholder organisations were invited to identify subject matter experts (SMEs) from a rescue and clinical background (total 60). SMEs participated over three rounds via an online platform. Consensus for agreement / disagreement was set at 70%. At each stage SMEs could offer feedback on, or modification to the statements considered which was reviewed and incorporated into new statements or new supporting information for the following rounds. Stakeholders agreed a set of principles based on the consensus statements on which future guidance should be based.

resultsSixty SMEs completed Round 1, 53 Round 2 (88%) and 49 Round 3 (82%). Consensus was reached on 91 statements (89 agree, 2 disagree) covering a broad range of domains related to: extrication terminology, extrication goals and approach, self-extrication, disentanglement, clinical care, immobilisation, patient-focused extrication, emergency services call and triage, and audit and research standards. Thirty-three statements did not reach consensus.

conclusionThis study has demonstrated consensus across a large panel of multidisciplinary SMEs on many key areas of extrication and related practice that will provide a key foundation in the development of evidence-based guidance for this subject area.

Indexed as

Accidents, TrafficEmergency Medical ServicesConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansMotor Vehicles

Identifiers

PMID35725580
PMCPMC9208189

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.