ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2026
Adjudication instrument for infection in critically injured trauma patients.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Detecting infection after trauma: why clinical context still matters.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Approximately one in four trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) develops an infection, resulting in 20% mortality. In trauma patients, it is difficult to distinguish the systemic inflammation due to injury from infection. Lack of a gold standard for diagnosing infection further complicates recognition and management of sepsis in this population. We developed and piloted an adjudication instrument to analyze infection status in critically injured trauma patients. Methods: Adult trauma patients admitted to the ICU (January-October 2022) were included. Our multidisciplinary adjudication committee of six clinical experts collaboratively developed the case report form (CRF) and infection status form. The CRFs have structured clinical data, and the infection status form includes the likelihood of infection on a Likert scale, site, and type of infection. Two adjudicators were randomly assigned to independently review the CRF and complete the infection status form. If both provided concordant responses, consensus was achieved. If there was a discrepancy in responses, a third adjudicator was assigned to review. Results: 40 patients underwent adjudication of infection status. Concordance between the two primary adjudicators was found in 82.5% (33/40). Of these, infection was identified in 18.2% (6/33). In all cases, adjudicators assessed a lung source of bacterial infection. Seven cases were reviewed by a third adjudicator, and infection was identified in 85.7% (6/7). Conclusions: In the absence of a gold standard for the diagnosis of infection in critically injured trauma patients, an adjudication process can be an effective way to standardize the assessment of a study event or endpoint. Level of evidence: Diagnostic tests or criteria; level II.
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.