ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Severe trauma in Germany and Israel: are we speaking the same language? A trauma registry comparison.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. 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.
- Risk factors for rehospitalization after trauma: a follow-up study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- Characteristics, outcomes, and prognostic factors in patients with penetrating and blunt traumatic diaphragmatic injury: a nationwide retrospective cohort study in Japan.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of horse trauma: a literature review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Trauma registries are a crucial component of trauma systems, as they could be utilized to perform a benchmarking of quality of care and enable research in a critical but important area of health care. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of two national trauma systems: Germany (TraumaRegister DGU®, TR-DGU) and Israel (Israeli National Trauma Registry, INTR). Methods: The present study was a retrospective analysis of data from the described above trauma registries in Israel and Germany. Adult patients from both registries treated during 2015-2019 with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 points were included. Patient demographics, type, distribution, mechanism, and severity of injury, treatment delivered and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU and in the hospital were included in the analysis. Results: Data were available from 12,585 Israeli patients and 55,660 German patients. Age and sex distribution were comparable, and road traffic collisions were the most prevalent cause of injuries. The ISS of German patients was higher (ISS 24 vs. 20), more patients were treated on an intensive care unit (92 vs. 32%), and mortality was higher (19.4 vs. 9.5%) as well. Conclusion: Despite similar inclusion criteria (ISS ≥ 16), remarkable differences between the two national datasets were observed. Most probably, this was caused by different recruitment strategies of both registries, like trauma team activation and need for intensive care in TR-DGU. More detailed analyses are needed to uncover similarities and differences of both trauma systems.
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.