Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations on Mental Health in Trauma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Many survivors of traumatic injuries are affected by mental disorders, which has recently led to the publication of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, there is no comprehensive synthesis of guideline recommendations to inform clinicians on those that should be prioritized for implementation and thus promote adherence to them. Objective: To identify guideline recommendations for the prevention and management of mental disorders in patients with traumatic injuries, appraise their quality, and synthesize the quality of evidence and the strength of included recommendations. Evidence Review: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and 61 websites of professional associations and guideline repositories were searched between January 2008 and September 2024. We included CPGs pertinent to the acute and early recovery phases (<3 months) of adult patients (≥18 years) with traumatic injuries with at least 1 recommendation on mental health. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. The quality of evidence on recommendations was synthesized using a matrix based on the categories of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Mental health recommendations had to target prevention, screening, evaluation, intervention, referral for follow-up or specialized services, and a patient- and family-centered care approach. Findings: Forty-three CPGs were included, 25 of which (58%) were high quality. Rigor of development, applicability, lack of involvement from all interested parties, and editorial independence were the most common methodological weaknesses. High-quality CPGs included 200 recommendations; of these, 50 (25%) were supported by moderate- to high-quality evidence and 30 (60%) targeted patients with traumatic brain injury. They covered mainly nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to treat acute stress disorder, substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, or aggression. Fewer recommendations related to prevention, screening, evaluation, and referral were identified as having high empirical support. Conclusions and Relevance: Fifty recommendations were identified that may be considered for implementation in clinical settings in patients with traumatic brain injury and other trauma populations. Our review underlines important areas for future research, including training for clinicians, a patient- and family-centered care approach, and health care equity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».