ArticleNigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
Descriptive study of free Emergency Trauma Services and Outcomes in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital, North-Western Nigeria.
Article in Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Waiting time at a trauma centre (TC) before injured patients receive treatment is critical to treatment outcomes. The study aims to find the impact of the government's free emergency services on the waiting time before treatment is initiated. Methodology: This was a retrospective study of the admitted emergency patients at the Trauma Centre, of Usmanu Dan fodio University Teaching Hospital (UDUTH), Sokoto, Nigeria, from November 2024 to March 2025. Patients' presentation time was classified as less than 6 hours or more than 6 hours before admission and waiting time as less than 15 minutes or greater than 15 minutes. The outcome was either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Chi-Square was used to analyse categorical data. The level of significance was set at P<0.05. Results: There were 366 patients included in the study. The average waiting time before intervention (in minutes) was 10.5±0.242. Most patients (42/11.5%) had a waiting time of 7 minutes. The male-to-female ratio was 2.1 to 1. The mean age of patients was 35.87±17.20. Cases seen were fractures & dislocations (122/33.3%), gunshot wounds (62/16.9%), head injuries (43/11.7%), burns (38/10.4%), spinal cord injuries (33/9.0%), abdominal injuries (26/7.1%), urologic injuries (21/5.7%) and others (21/5.7%) include chest injuries, soft tissues, limbs gangrene etc. There were 252 (58.9%) patients who presented less than 6 hours post-injury, while 114 (31.1%) presented after 6 hours. Patients who started receiving treatment on admission <16 minutes were 298 (81.4%), and those at >15 minutes were 68 (18.6%). Associating injury duration (<6 hours vs. >6 hours) and treatment outcomes, p-value=0.0001, OR=4.90, 95% CI=2.39-10.04. At the same time, associating waiting time before treatment and treatment outcomes, the p-value=0.0001, OR=5.29, 95% CI=10.77. Following the paired sample t-test of the 2 groups between the median (10.0), the p-value was 0.0001. Conclusion: There was an improvement in the waiting time for the initiation of treatment. This was largely influenced by the presence of free ambulance services, available free medications and surgical interventions.
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.