ArticlePloS one2025
Designing a prototype trauma registry framework for a tertiary health institution in a low- and middle-income country: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLow- and middle-income countries experience high injury-related mortality rates, with road traffic crashes being a significant contributor in Nigeria. Data from trauma registries are crucial for designing and advocating for trauma intervention programmes. However, there is limited research to inform the development of trauma registries in a Nigerian setting. The aim of this study was to design a feasible prototype trauma registry (TR) including, scope of activities and registry components for University College Hospital (UCH), Ibadan, Nigeria.
methodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with eight purposively selected trauma registry stakeholders in UCH to obtain context-specific information for a prototype registry. An expert meeting was conducted with four purposively selected experts within the hospital to assess and validate the suitability of the prototype TR scope and TR components, confirming their applicability and potential efficacy in UCH. Information obtained from the interviews and expert meeting were analysed deductively using thematic analysis.
resultsStakeholders identified the most feasible scope for the trauma registry (TR) as daily data collection on all trauma patients from their initial presentation to discharge or death. This data would be gathered primarily at two critical points: the accident/emergency department and the wards where trauma patients are admitted. Stakeholders believed that comprehensive information about trauma patients could be achieved through these collection points. Following this scope, the analysis led to the identification of 21 essential components and activities for the TR, which were then organised into six categories: registry personnel, computers and other materials, trainings, technology infrastructure, administrative services, and monitoring and evaluation.
conclusionThe scope and components identified are relevant to our context and have the potential to contribute to trauma prevention programmes, improve patient care and outcomes, and contribute to trauma-related policies and programmes if successfully implemented.
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.