SynthesisEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2025
Examining the impact of validated handover protocols on treatment outcomes in polytrauma patients: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEffective patient handovers in healthcare settings are critical for ensuring patient safety and care quality. Handover tools have gained prominence as potential aids in improving these transitions. This systematic review seeks to answer the question if the use of validated handover protocols leads to better treatment outcomes in polytrauma patients compared to no use of validated handover protocols.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science to identify relevant studies from inception of each database to June 15, 2022. We intended to include systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials comparing the use of validated handover tools to no use of such tools in adult polytrauma patients.
resultsDespite the absence of systematic reviews and RCTs meeting our criteria, we included 26 initially excluded studies to glean insights into handover tool usage. This broader inclusion facilitated the identification of two categories of tools: standardized tools and customized tools. Among studies employing customized tools, positive outcomes were reported in various aspects, including enhanced information quality, improved staff communication, and reduced risks and treatment errors. In contrast, studies utilizing well-established standardized tools documented improvements in communication, documentation, and overall satisfaction among medical professionals, signaling a reduction in communication errors and lost information.
conclusionHeterogeneity of the studies and no trials meeting our eligibility criteria present challenges for conducting a traditional systematic review. In the lack of evidence from RCTs and systematic reviews, our analysis of the available studies sheds light on the complexities of assessing handover tools' utility, especially in diverse clinical settings. It highlights the need for more standardized methodologies and further investigation into the effectiveness of custom-designed tools. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the role of handover tools in healthcare. While some studies suggest positive outcomes, further research is necessary to elucidate the design and implementation of these tools to enhance care and support healthcare professionals in their roles.
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.