ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Factors associated with a positive shock index in the prehospital setting after major trauma.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Chinese expert consensus on the prehospital management of major trauma.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2026Article
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
backgroundBleeding and coagulopathy are the leading causes of potentially preventable death and multi-organ damage after injury. Trauma care in the prehospital setting focusses on three key tenets; identification, lifesaving interventions and transport. Existing prehospital trauma triage guidelines use a combination of physiological, and patterns of injury to identify potential major trauma, however these guidelines are not designed to identify potential shock.
methodsWe conducted a registry-based cohort study using data from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) on adult major trauma patients (≥ 16 years) transported by EMS between 2010 and 2020, including patients within 70 km of Melbourne’s major trauma services. Data from VSTR were linked with the Victorian Ambulance Clinical Information System and operational records from Ambulance Victoria. The primary outcome was shock, defined by a shock index (SI) ≥ 0.9.Logistic regression models stratified by transport mode examined associations with shock. Descriptive statistics and tests of association were used, followed by multivariate logistic regression.
resultsOver this 10-year study, 16,265 patients were identified within 70 km of the major trauma services. 26% of the patients had a shock index ≥ 0.9, and the majority of these patients (88%) were transported by road ambulance. The majority of the patients in this study (69%) were injured within 30 km of the MTS. Females had an increased adjusted odds of shock (aOR = 2.19), as did patients who were entrapped (aOR = 1.23). DISCUSSION: This study identified that over a quarter of major trauma patients experienced shock during the prehospital phase, with most lacking access to advanced lifesaving interventions typically provided by MICA-flight paramedics. These findings underscore the importance of aligning prehospital care systems with patient needs to optimize trauma outcomes.
conclusionOver 25% of major trauma patients developed a shock index ≥ 0.9 within the prehospital phase of their care. Furthermore, 88% of the shocked patients did not have access to the most advanced prehospital life-saving interventions available within the state.
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.