ArticleUnfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[Reassessment of the emergency medical service deployment indication catalogue after traffic accidents].
Article in Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe emergency physician indication catalogue is based on outdated studies and provides limited guidance for alarm criteria following traffic accidents. Advances in vehicle safety technology and changes in available resources necessitate a re-evaluation of the indications. The aim of this retrospective registry study is to identify preclinically assessable variables for severe injuries sustained in traffic accidents.
methodsA total of 47,145 individuals involved in accidents between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2021 from the GIDAS database were included. Separate datasets for severe (AIS 3+) and minor injuries were evaluated.
resultsEjection (PPV 80.6%), entrapment (PPV 75.6%), burning vehicles (PPV 57.1%), challenging rescue situations (PPV 56.3%), vehicle disintegration (PPV 51.6%), and amnesia (PPV 50.3%) indicated severe injuries among vehicle occupants. For vulnerable road users (motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians), helmet loss (PPV 61.1%), being run over/dragging (PPV 41.9%), opponent vehicle window breakage (PPV 35.8%), and subsequent collision with objects (PPV 31.1%) were also identified. The χ DISCUSSION: The current emergency physician indication catalogue provides limited preclinically detectable criteria and should be revised based on the objective registry data. Query models for emergency dispatchers should be tested.
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.