Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42149591›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

State Trauma Center Designation Criteria and Expansion of For-Profit vs Nonprofit Trauma Centers.

Sachin Narayan, Nam Yong Cho, Kaustav Chattopadhyay, David A Spain, Kristan Staudenmayer, Jeff Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sachin NarayanStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Nam Yong ChoDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kaustav ChattopadhyayRutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
David A SpainDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Kristan StaudenmayerDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Jeff ChoiDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Trauma center designation in the US is determined by state-specific criteria, whereas the optional American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) standards provide a nationally recognized benchmark for optimal trauma care. The number of trauma centers continues to expand, yet access disparities persist. The degree of alignment between state designation criteria and ACS-COT standards as well as its implications for recent patterns of for-profit and nonprofit center expansion remain unexplored. Objective: To quantify the concordance between each state's trauma center designation criteria and ACS-COT standards, and to evaluate its correlation with expansion of for-profit and nonprofit trauma centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Trauma Information Exchange Program database for all designated trauma centers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Data were analyzed from January to September 2024. Exposure: State-specific trauma center designation criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was concordance, defined as the proportion of ACS-COT standards reflected in each state's trauma center designation criteria. Correlations (Spearman rank [rs]) of concordance with the expansion of for-profit and nonprofit trauma centers from 2013 to 2022 were calculated. Results: The study cohort comprised 464 trauma centers (389 nonprofit [83.8%] and 75 for-profit [16.2%]) that gained designation between 2013 and 2022. State trauma center designation criteria concordance with ACS-COT standards varied between 31.1% and 100%. Overall mean (SD) concordance was highest for level I trauma centers with the highest resource capacity (92.5% [15.6%]) and lowest for level IV trauma centers with low resource capacity (78.5% [28.2%]). Among the 464 trauma centers, 380 (81.9%) were level III or IV centers with lower resource capacity. States with lower concordance between their designation criteria and ACS-COT standards had a statistically significant correlation with expansion of for-profit trauma centers (rs = -0.39; P = .004) but not with expansion of nonprofit trauma centers. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of state trauma center designation criteria and their alignment with ACS-COT standards, states' designation criteria and trauma center expansion patterns varied widely. Lower concordance between state designation criteria and ACS-COT standards was correlated with for-profit trauma centers, whereas this pattern was not observed for nonprofit trauma centers. These findings highlight the importance of understanding how regulatory environments may shape trauma system development.

Indexed as

Hospitals, VoluntaryOrganizations, NonprofitTrauma CentersCross-Sectional StudiesHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42149591
PMCPMC13184818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.