ArticleBMJ open2026
Strategies for assessing posthospitalisation outcomes in trauma survivors and their feasibility of implementation: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEach year, physical traumas affect over one billion people worldwide, generating a substantial burden in terms of mortality, disability and productivity loss. The period following hospital discharge, encompassing the transition to home, short-term stays in rehabilitation facilities, as well as outpatient and community-based follow-up care, represents a critical phase in the recovery process for trauma injury patients. Yet, this phase remains poorly documented. We aim to (1) Map data on assessment strategies for various outcomes among trauma survivors after hospital discharge, including the tools used and how they are administered, as well as the resources required, and the barriers and facilitators to their implementation, and (2) Compare the feasibility of implementing the assessment strategies while considering response rates, resource use, costs and sustainability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO for studies published since 1990 to reflect the evolution of contemporary follow-up practices, including the emergence of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and digital tools. There will be no language restrictions. We will consider all studies involving trauma survivors, focusing on the evaluation of postdischarge health outcomes. Two independent reviewers will screen studies and extract data on population characteristics, assessment strategies and feasibility. Results will be analysed thematically and presented narratively. We will present counts and percentages for each assessment strategy, along with its characteristics and associated barriers and facilitators. Subgroup analyses will also be conducted based on clinical and social determinants and contextual factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this review. The results of this scoping review will be shared through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and our network of knowledge users. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/KZHS4.
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.