SynthesisScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Exploring tools used in the assessment of Trauma Team Leadership using video review: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeadership is a key non‑technical determinant of trauma team performance and is associated with adherence to protocols and patient outcomes. Retrospective video review is increasingly used to evaluate trauma resuscitations; However, the structured observational tools used to evaluate trauma team leadership during video review are heterogeneous and inconsistently reported. This systematic review identifies and characterises structured observational tools used during video review to assess trauma team leadership behaviours.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42025636807). MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched without date restrictions. Studies were eligible if they used retrospective video review of real or simulated trauma resuscitations and applied a structured observational tool to assess leadership or leadership‑related non‑technical skills. Two reviewers independently screened studies extracted data and performed methodological appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Due to substantial heterogeneity, results were synthesised narratively.
resultsTwenty studies published between 1988 and 2024 were included. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 15), with additional studies from Canada (n = 3) and the Netherlands (n = 2). Nineteen distinct structured assessment tools were identified. The Non‑Technical Skills Scale for Trauma (T‑NOTECHS) was the most frequently used instrument (n = 7), followed by the Mayo High Performance Teamwork Scale and the EM Resuscitation Team Leadership Measure. Considerable variation existed in leadership domains assessed, scale structure, rater background and rater training. Communication, decision‑making, task management and situational awareness were the most commonly evaluated leadership attributes. Inter‑rater reliability was inconsistently reported and ranged from poor to excellent, with higher agreement generally observed in simulation‑based assessments.
conclusionsMultiple tools have been used to assess trauma team leadership using video review, with marked heterogeneity in design, rater approach, and reliability reporting. While T-NOTECHS is the most commonly applied instrument, variation in constructs and scoring limits comparability across studies and trauma centres and complicates evaluation of leadership-focused education and quality-improvement initiatives. Inconsistent reliability evidence also constrains outcome-linked research. Greater consistency in leadership assessment tools, rater training, and psychometric reporting is therefore required to support benchmarking, robust evaluation of improvement programmes, and research linking leadership behaviours to clinical and system 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.