ArticleBMJ open2024
Development and validation of a model to predict the need for artificial airways for acute trauma patients in the emergency department: a retrospective case-control study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop scores for predicting the need for artificial airway procedures for acute trauma patients in the emergency department (ED).
designRetrospective case-control.
settingA tertiary comprehensive hospital in China.
participants8288 trauma patients admitted to the ED within 24 hours of injury and who were admitted from 1 August 2012 to 31 July 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The study outcome was the establishment of an artificial airway within 24 hours of admission to the ED. Based on the different feature compositions, two scores were developed in the development cohort by multivariable logistic regression. The predictive performance was assessed in the validation cohort.
resultsThe O-SPACER (Oxygen saturation, Systolic blood pressure, Pulse rate, Age, Coma Scale, Eye response, Respiratory rate) score was developed based on the patient's basic information with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89) in the validation group. Based on the basic information and trauma scores, the IO-SPACER (Injury Severity Score, Oxygen saturation, Systolic blood pressure, Pulse rate, Age, Coma Scale, Eye response, Respiratory rate) score was developed, with an AUC of 0.88 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.92). According to the O-SPACER and IO-SPACER scores, the patients were stratified into low, medium and high-risk groups. According to these two scores, the high-risk patients were associated with an increased demand for artificial airways, with an OR of 40.16-40.67 compared with the low-risk patients.
conclusionsThe O-SPACER score provides risk stratification for injured patients requiring urgent airway intervention in the ED and may be useful in guiding initial management. The IO-SPACER score may assist in further determining whether the patient needs planned intubation or tracheotomy early after trauma.
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.