SynthesisBMJ open2025
Weighing the impact of evidence in orthopaedic trauma registries: a systematic review of national and international registry data.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Significant other reported outcome measures within European cohorts of severely injured patients: A systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Pooled it
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
objectivesWorldwide, there are 15 established trauma databases collecting data to better understand the patterns of injury and effectiveness of interventions, but interpreting the information is hampered by the varied approaches. The aim of this study was to determine the impact, practices, evolution in design and methods of analysis that are standardised and comparable within registries.
designA thematic analysis using a narrative synthesis was used to develop threads for future study and identify the limitations in current practice. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and EMBASE were searched on the 2 October 2025. At the same time, ChatGPT (Open artificial intelligence) identified the most cited articles in orthopaedic trauma registries, cross-referencing lists as a form of triangulation to aid in snowballing references. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The review included 174 papers from trials and observational studies that analyse data from established trauma orthopaedic registries published in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies assessing the papers using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist to assess the observational and cohort studies and the Downs and Black Quality Criteria for the remaining papers.
resultsOutcome measures other than mortality are poorly collected, undermining the value of registries. Trauma patients reported considerable impairment 6 and 12 months after injury. Association between level of trauma care and mortality is evident for major trauma populations, but does not hold for general trauma populations. Level I trauma centres produce improved survival in severely injured, but this association could not be proven for non-fatal outcomes in general populations. There is a disparity between resources allocated to save and salvage cases within major trauma units, and hence, routine cases often have lower priority and delayed care.
conclusionsThere is a need to develop a standardised and reproducible method to evaluate data quality in trauma registries. National performance guidelines and trauma centre audits are integral steps towards optimum results. Routine collection of postinjury outcome measures beyond mortality will enable the development of quality improvement metrics that better reflect patient outcomes.
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.