Observational studyEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2022
Evaluation of validity and reliability of video analysis and live observations to assess trauma team performance.
Observational study in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The SEWAbility system: a video-based job analysis framework for understanding task-specific job demands.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Changes in multidisciplinary perceptions of trauma video review following implementation of a novel program: let us go to the tape.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- Trauma video review: how long do we curb our enthusiasm?Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- High-impact technical and patient management tips from the 2024 AAST Continuous Certification Course: preperitoneal pelvic packing, trauma video review, video-assisted thoracic surgery for retained hemothorax, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Review
- Literature review of the use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment with a fixed list of terms.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Variations in Trauma Education Practices Across Emergency Medicine Residencies: Insights from a National Survey of Program Directors.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA trauma resuscitation is dynamic and complex process in which failures could lead to serious adverse events. In several trauma centers, evaluation of trauma resuscitation is part of a hospital's quality assessment program. While video analysis is commonly used, some hospitals use live observations, mainly due to ethical and medicolegal concerns. The aim of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of video analysis and live observations to evaluate trauma resuscitations.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, validity was assessed by comparing the observed adherence to 28 advanced trauma life support (ATLS) guideline related tasks by video analysis to life observations. Interobserver reliability was assessed by calculating the intra class coefficient of observed ATLS related tasks by live observations and video analysis.
resultsEleven simulated and thirteen real-life resuscitations were assessed. Overall, the percentage of observed ATLS related tasks performed during simulated resuscitations was 10.4% (P < 0.001) higher when the same resuscitations were analysed using video compared to live observations. During real-life resuscitations, 8.7% (p < 0.001) more ATLS related tasks were observed using video review compared to live observations. In absolute terms, a mean of 2.9 (during simulated resuscitations) respectively 2.5 (during actual resuscitations) ATLS-related tasks per resuscitation were not identified using live observers, that were observed through video analysis. The interobserver variability for observed ATLS related tasks was significantly higher using video analysis compared to live observations for both simulated (video analysis: ICC 0.97; 95% CI 0.97-0.98 vs. live observation: ICC 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.78) and real-life witnessed resuscitations (video analyse 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00 vs live observers 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.89).
conclusionVideo analysis of trauma resuscitations may be more valid and reliable compared to evaluation by live observers. These outcomes may guide the debate to justify video review instead of live observations.
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.