ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2025
Evaluation and Implication of Case Volume Variation in Level 1 and 2 Trauma Centers.
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate variation in case volume and procedural volume across level 1 and 2 U.S. trauma centers. Background: When trauma center distribution does not fit regional needs, the longstanding volume-outcomes relationship in trauma care is at risk. Case volume variability has important implications for trauma center distribution, patient outcomes, and clinical skills maintenance. Methods: We placed trauma centers into quintiles based on average annual patient volume meeting American College of Surgery Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS TQIP) inclusion criteria from 2017 to 2021. Patient characteristics and procedures performed were evaluated across case volume and trauma center verification levels. We evaluated the relationship between procedural volume and case volume by examining the number of interventions performed as a proportion of patients with a potential indication. Results: We identified 1,902,005 patients among 228 level 1 and 288 level 2 trauma centers. A fourfold difference in ACS TQIP qualifying patient volume was present between the highest and lowest quintile level 1 and 2 trauma centers (1888 ± 481 vs 484 ± 109, 966 ± 223 vs 224 ± 70). The lowest quintile centers performed very low volumes of essential trauma procedures including hemorrhage control (22 per year) and pelvic fracture operations (10 per year). Low-volume trauma centers performed proportionally fewer procedures, including hemorrhage control procedures for patients presenting with tachycardia and hypotension (25.9 vs 31.8%, Conclusions: Trauma center case volume varies widely, with 1-in-5 level 1 trauma centers averaging <2 hemorrhage control procedures per month. Furthermore, low-volume centers perform proportionally fewer procedures suggesting unexplained variation in practice patterns.
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.