ArticleJournal of trauma and injury2023
Severity of grinder injuries and related factors compared with other high-rotation cutting tool injuries: a multicenter retrospective study from 2011 to 2018.
Article in Journal of trauma and injury, 2023. 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
Purpose: This study aimed to identify the characteristics of patients injured by high-rotation cutting tools and the factors related to the severity of their injuries. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years), who presented to the emergency department (ED) after a high-rotation cutting tool injury and who were registered in the Korean Emergency Department-based Injury In-depth Surveillance (2011-2018) database, were included. Patients' demographic characteristics, injury-related factors, and Injury Severity Scores were collected. All included cases were categorized into two groups according to the tool that caused the injury: grinder versus nongrinder. The characteristics of the two groups were compared, and the factors associated with the severity of injuries were investigated. Results: Among 8,697 ED visits, 4,603 patients had been using a grinder and 4,094 had been using a nongrinder tool. The most frequently injured body part while using a grinder was the hand (46.4%), followed by the head (23.0%). While using a nongrinder tool, the most frequently injured body part was also the hand (64.0%), followed by the lower leg (11.4%). The odds of a severe injury were affected by patient age (odds ratio [OR], 1.024; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.020-1.028) and using a grinder (OR, 2.073; 95% CI, 1.877-2.290). The odds of a severe injury using a grinder were higher in arm injuries (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.40-1.83) and multiple-part injuries (OR, 1.998; 95% CI, 1.639-2.437). The odds of a severe injury using a grinder were lower for head injuries (OR, 0.481; 95% CI, 0.297-0.781). Conclusions: Injuries from grinders were more likely to affect the head and neck than nongrinder injuries, despite the lower severity. The current lack of regulations on grinders in occupational safety and health standards warrants relevant legislation and the development of applicable safety equipment.
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.