ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023
Injury outcomes across Canadian trauma systems: a historical cohort study.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trauma systems in high socioeconomic index countries in 2050.Critical care (London, England) · 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
22 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMost North American trauma systems have designated trauma centres (TCs) including level I (ultraspecialized high-volume metropolitan centres), level II (specialized medium-volume urban centres), and/or level III (semirural or rural centres). Trauma system configuration varies across provinces and it is unclear how these differences influence patient distributions and outcomes. We aimed to compare patient case mix, case volumes, and risk-adjusted outcomes of adults with major trauma admitted to designated level I, II, and III TCs across Canadian trauma systems.
methodsIn a national historical cohort study, we extracted data from Canadian provincial trauma registries on major trauma patients treated between 2013 and 2018 in all designated level I, II, or III TCs in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Nova Scotia; level I and II TCs in New Brunswick; and four TCs in Ontario. We used multilevel generalized linear models to compare mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission and competitive risk models for hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS). Ontario could not be included in outcome comparisons because there were no population-based data from this province.
resultsThe study sample comprised 50,959 patients. Patient distributions in level I and II TCs were similar across provinces but we observed significant differences in case mix and volumes for level III TCs. There was low variation in risk-adjusted mortality and LOS across provinces and TCs but interprovincial and intercentre variation in risk-adjusted ICU admission was high.
conclusionsOur results suggest that differences in the functional role of TCs according to their designation level across provinces leads to significant variations in the distribution of patients, case volumes, resource use, and clinical outcomes. These results highlight opportunities to improve Canadian trauma care and underline the need for standardized population-based injury data to support national quality improvement efforts.
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.