Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38946735›Full record

ArticleBritish paramedic journal2024

Major Trauma Triage Tool Study (MATTS) expert consensus-derived injury assessment tool.

Gordon Fuller, Nathan Howes, Roderick Mackenzie, Samuel Keating, Janette Turner, Chris Holt, Joshua Miller, Steve Goodacre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British paramedic journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gordon FullerUniversity of Sheffield ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8532-3500.
Nathan HowesCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Magpas Air Ambulance ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7117-7045.
Roderick MackenzieCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Magpas Air Ambulance ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6004-0993.
Samuel KeatingUniversity of Sheffield.
Janette TurnerUniversity of Sheffield ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3884-7875.
Chris HoltUniversity of Sheffield.
Joshua MillerWest Midlands Ambulance Service ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1990-4029.
Steve GoodacreUniversity of Sheffield ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0803-8444.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Major trauma centre (MTC) care has been associated with improved outcomes for injured patients. English ambulance services and trauma networks currently use a range of triage tools to select patients for bypass to MTCs. A standardised national triage tool may improve triage accuracy, cost-effectiveness and the reproducibility of decision-making. Methods: We conducted an expert consensus process to derive and develop a major trauma triage tool for use in English trauma networks. A web-based Delphi survey was conducted to identify and confirm candidate triage tool predictors of major trauma. Facilitated roundtable consensus meetings were convened to confirm the proposed triage tool's purpose, target diagnostic threshold, scope, intended population and structure, as well as the individual triage tool predictors and cut points. Public and patient involvement (PPI) focus groups were held to ensure triage tool acceptability to service users. Results: The Delphi survey reached consensus on nine triage variables in two domains, from 109 candidate variables after three rounds. Following a review of the relevant evidence during the consensus meetings, iterative rounds of discussion achieved consensus on the following aspects of the triage tool: reference standard, scope, target diagnostic accuracy and intended population. A three-step tool comprising physiology, anatomical injury and clinical judgement domains, with triage variables assessed in parallel, was recommended. The triage tool was received favourably by PPI focus groups. Conclusions: This paper presents a new expert consensus derived major trauma triage tool with defined purpose, scope, intended population, structure, constituent variables, variable definitions and thresholds. Prospective evaluation is required to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness, acceptability and usability.

Indexed as

expert consensusinjuriesmajor traumamajor trauma triagetrauma centrestriage tool

Identifiers

PMID38946735
PMCPMC11210584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.