ArticleBritish paramedic journal2024
'Endless variation on a theme': a document analysis of international and UK major trauma triage tools.
Article in British paramedic journal, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Triage tools are used within trauma networks to identify which injured patients should be bypassed and pre-alerted to major trauma centres. Despite the importance of treating the 'right patient in the right place at the right time', there has been no consensus on triage tool structure or content. This study aimed to identify, collate, review, summarise and recognise patterns across established major trauma triage tools. Methods: UK and international triage tools used between 2012 and 2021 were identified through literature review and correspondence with trauma networks. A conceptual content analysis was then undertaken using an inductive codebook, comprising concepts of triage tool structure, intended population, inclusion criteria and included variables and thresholds. Thematic analysis was also performed to identify higher-level patterns within the data, with emerging patterns becoming categories for analysis. A narrative synthesis of findings was then undertaken. Results: In total, 53 major trauma tools were identified, comprising 19 UK tools and 35 published international tools. Most triage tools (n = 42/53, 80%) were developed by expert opinion, were paper based and shared a common structure of multiple domains, with constituent triage predictors assessed in parallel. A minority of tools were statistically derived prediction models, operationalised either as simple scores (n = 10, 19%) or as an electronic application (n = 1, 1%). Overall, 173 distinct triage variables were used, with the median number of constituent triage variables per triage tool being 19 (range 3-31). Four distinct patterns of triage tools were identified during thematic analysis, which differed in terms of format, number of triage variables, thresholds, scope for clinical judgement and relative diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: Many diverse major trauma triage tools were identified, with no consensus in format, structure or content. Quantification of constituent variables and identification of distinct categories of triage tools may guide the design of future triage tools.
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.