SynthesisEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2026
The utilisation of international consensus definitions of the disease polytrauma: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe disease of polytrauma is associated with significant healthcare burden and poor prognosis. The validated Newcastle and the Berlin consensus definitions of polytrauma have been proposed more than a decade ago for standardising clinical, scientific and advocacy related communications. This systematic review aims to evaluate the uptake of the Newcastle and the Berlin definitions of polytrauma since their introduction.
methodsThis systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD420251119950) adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search of original research studies reported in English on polytrauma patients from 1st January 2015 to 31st of December 2025 was conducted, using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL and CENTRAL. Specific focus was on the utilisation of the Berlin and the Newcastle definitions, but all explicitly stated definitions of polytrauma were analysed.
resultsA total of 2354 studies were identified through initial literature search. 1491 studies were excluded after screening by title and abstract. The full text review of 863 studies was performed and resulted in 88 eligible studies after the exclusion of 732 studies with no explicit definitions of polytrauma and 43 studies on non-human subjects. Ten studies (11.4%) used the Berlin definition of polytrauma, and six studies (6.8%) reported using the Newcastle definition. The consensus definitions were reported the most in 2024, with 2 studies using Newcastle and 3 studies using the Berlin definition of polytrauma.
conclusionsDespite the establishment and utility in accurately representing the polytrauma population, the Newcastle and the Berlin definitions of polytrauma remain under-utilised in the current literature.
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.