ArticleChinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi2025
Comparative epidemiology and treatment outcomes at trauma centers: A cross-national analysis of the United States and China.
Article in Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough there are significant differences between China and the United States (US) in trauma medical services, there has been no direct comparative research on the epidemiological data of trauma centers between the 2 countries. This study aims to fill this research gap by directly comparing trauma centers in China and the US, providing valuable data and insights for the development of trauma centers in both countries, promoting academic exchange and cooperation internationally, and enhancing the level of global trauma medical care.
methodsThis is a multicenter retrospective descriptive study. Data were collected for trauma patients with an injury severity score ≥16 treated from September 2013 to September 2019 at 2 hospital trauma centers in these 2 countries. Detailed clinical data (including injury mechanism, age, injury site, injury severity score, pre-hospital transport time, whether blood transfusion was performed, whether resuscitative thoracotomy was conducted, hospital and intensive care unit stay duration, the number of organ donor patients, mortality rates, and costs) were meticulously compiled and retrospectively analyzed to identify differences between the 2 trauma centers. The comparison was conducted using SPSS 23 software. Continuous variables are reported as median (Q
resultsThese results point to significant differences in trauma center capacity, pre-hospital transport times, treatment procedures, hospital stay duration, mortality rates, and costs between the 2 centers. The volume of patients in trauma centers is less in China (2465 vs. 5288). Pre-hospital transport time was notably longer in China (180 min vs. 14 min), and the rate of emergency blood transfusions was lower in China (18.4% vs. 50.6%), Emergency thoracotomy was not performed in China but was conducted in 9.8% of cases in the US. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in China than in the US ($5847 vs. $75,671).
conclusionThere are clear differences in trauma center capacity (number of patients treated), pre-hospital transport time, age distribution of injured patients, injury mechanisms, injury sites, whether emergency thoracotomy is performed, hospital costs, and length of stay between the 2 trauma centers in China and America. Understanding these differences can help us further recognize the characteristics of Eastern and Western trauma patients.
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.