| Title |
A Consensus‐Based Criterion Standard for the Requirement of a Trauma Team
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-018-4553-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Waydhas, Markus Baake, Lars Becker, Boris Buck, Helena Düsing, Björn Heindl, Kai Oliver Jensen, Rolf Lefering, Carsten Mand, T. Paffrath, Uwe Schweigkofler, Kai Sprengel, Heiko Trentzsch, Bernd Wohlrath, Dan Bieler |
| Abstract |
Trauma team activation (TTA) represents a considerable expenditure of trauma centre resources. It is mainly triggered by field triage criteria. The overall quality of the criteria may be evaluated based on the rate of over- and undertriage. However, there is no gold standard that defines which adult patients truly require a trauma team. The objective of this study was to develop consensus-based criteria defining the necessity for a trauma team. A consensus group was formed by trauma specialists experienced in emergency and trauma care with a specific interest in field triage and having previously participated in guideline development. A literature search was conducted to identify criteria that have already been used or suggested. The initial list of criteria was discussed in two Delphi round and two consensus conferences. The entire process of discussion and voting was highly standardized and extensively documented, resulting in a final list of criteria. Initially 95 criteria were identified. This was subsequently reduced to 20 final criteria to appropriately indicate the requirement for attendance of a trauma team. The criteria address aspects related to injury severity, admission to an intensive care unit, death within 24 h, need for specified invasive procedures, need for surgical and/or interventional radiological procedures, and abnormal vital signs within a defined time period. The selected criteria may be applied as a tool for research and quality control concerning TTA. However, future studies are necessary to further evaluate for possible redundancy in criteria that may allow for further reduction in criteria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 27% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,094,152
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#2,724
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,485
of 331,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#66
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 331,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.