ArticleOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2019
Trauma systems in North America.
Article in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of specialized trauma care: A systematic review.Journal of health services research & policy · 2026Pooled it
- Musculoskeletal trauma rehabilitation: a global comparison.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025Article
- Trauma systems: a global comparison.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of Traumatic Injuries at a Single Regional Trauma Center in South Korea: Age-Specific and Temporal Trends (2014-2023).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Audiometric and vestibular outcomes following temporal bone fractures: a retrospective analysis of a major trauma center cohort in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Rehabilitation after musculoskeletal injury: an overview of systems in the United States and Canada.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2024Review
- Article
- A geospatial examination of specialist care accessibility and impact on health outcomes for patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury in New South Wales, Australia: a population record linkage study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
North American trauma systems are well developed yet vary widely in form across the continent. Comparatively, the Canadian trauma system is more unified, and approximately 80% of Canadians live within 1 hour of a level I or II center. In the United States, trauma centers are specifically verified by the individual states and thus there tends to be more variability across the country. Although many states use the criteria developed by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, the individual agencies are free to utilize their own verification standards. Both Canada and the United States utilize efficient prehospital care, and both countries recognize that postdischarge care is a financial challenge to the system. Population dense areas offer rapid admission to well-developed trauma centers, but injured patients in remote areas may have challenges regarding access. Trauma centers are classified according to their capabilities from level I (highest ability) to level IV. Although each trauma system has opportunities for improvement, they both provide effective access and quality care to the vast majority of injured patients.
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.