Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42908887›Full record

ReviewBrain & spine2026

From trauma capacity to neurotrauma capacity: A scoping review of existing assessment frameworks.

Nicolò Marchesini, Dina Belhaj Youssef, Ellianne Dos Santos Rubio, Edoardo Picetti, Tariq Khan, Corrado Iaccarino, Andrès M Rubiano

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain & spine, 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

7 authors.

Nicolò MarchesiniDepartment of Neurosurgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, Verona, Italy.
Dina Belhaj YoussefDepartment of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Neurosurgery, University of Verona, Italy.
Ellianne Dos Santos RubioDepartment of Neurosurgery, Willemstad, Curaçao.
Edoardo PicettiDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy.
Tariq KhanNorthwest General Hospital and Research Centre, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Corrado IaccarinoSchool of Neurosurgery, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Andrès M RubianoMeditech Foundation, Cali, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Neurotrauma, comprising traumatic brain injury (TBI) and traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI), remains a major global health issue, with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bearing a disproportionate burden. Effective neurotrauma care requires timely and coordinated access to prehospital care, imaging, surgery, neurocritical care, and rehabilitation, yet current assessment frameworks often fail to capture these interdependent requirements. Research question: What instruments are currently available to evaluate trauma and neurosurgical capacity across diverse global settings, and to what extent do these tools capture indicators relevant to neurotrauma care? Material and methods: We conducted a scoping review following JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health from inception to March 2026, supplemented by grey literature. We included studies describing instruments assessing system or facility-level capacity for trauma or neurosurgical care. Data extraction and domain mapping were performed independently by two reviewers. Results: Twenty-six documents were included, describing 19 distinct instruments. Instruments were categorized as surgical capacity (n = 4), trauma capacity (n = 4), neurosurgical/neurocritical care capacity (n = 4), and quality indicator sets (n = 7). Emergency and imaging readiness was the most frequently covered domain (89%), followed by quality and audit systems (68%), operative capacity (53%), and neurocritical care (47%). Prehospital referral systems and workforce/training were the least covered domains (37% each). Only two instruments covered all six predefined neurotrauma domains. Discussion and conclusion: Existing tools assess important components of trauma and neurosurgical capacity but remain heterogeneous and fragmented. No identified instrument provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of neurotrauma capacity across the full continuum of care. These findings support the development of an integrated framework combining indicators across the neurotrauma care pathway.

Indexed as

Capacity assessmentDeveloping countriesGlobal surgeryHealth systemsNeurotraumaScoping review

Identifiers

PMID42908887
PMCPMC13683447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.