| Title |
Trends in Procedures at Major Trauma Centres in New South Wales, Australia: An Analysis of State‐Wide Trauma Data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-017-3993-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew Oliver, Michael M. Dinh, Kate Curtis, Royce Paschkewitz, Oran Rigby, Zsolt J. Balogh |
| Abstract |
To describe the trend in major trauma surgical procedures and interventional radiology in major trauma patients in Australia over the past 6 years. This was a retrospective review of adult major trauma (Injury Severity Score greater than 15) patients using the New South Wales Statewide Trauma Registry between 2009 and 2014. Major trauma surgical procedures were classified into abdominal, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic and interventional radiology. The proportion of patients undergoing such procedures per year was the outcome of interest. There were around ten thousand cases analysed. The proportion of cases undergoing interventional radiology procedures increased from 1% in 2009 to around 6% in 2014. Other major trauma surgical procedures remained stable. Only around 100 laparotomies were performed in 2014. The predictors of having an IR procedure performed were increasing from 2009 (OR 1.5 95% CI 1.4, 1.6 p < 0.001), hypotension (OR 1.5 95% CI 1.1, 2.1 n = 0.01), severe abdominal injury (OR 4.2 95% CI 3.2, 5.3 p < 0.001) and lower limb (including pelvic) injury (OR 3.8 95% CI 3.0, 4.7 p < 0.001). There has been a rapid increase in the use of interventional radiology over the past few years which will need to be addressed in future trauma service planning and models of care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 30% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 30% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,693,204
of 23,652,325 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#763
of 4,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,535
of 310,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#28
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,652,325 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.