Evidence for quality indicators to evaluate adult trauma care: A systematic review*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Multiple quality indicators are available to evaluate adult trauma care, but their characteristics and outcomes have not been systematically compared. We sought to systematically review the evidence about the reliability, validity, and implementation of quality indicators for evaluating trauma care. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library up to January 14, 2009; the Gray Literature; select journals by hand; reference lists; and articles recommended by experts in the field. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected that evaluated the reliability, validity, or the impact of one or more quality indicators on the quality of care delivered to patients ≥ 18 yrs of age with a major traumatic injury. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers with methodologic and content expertise conducted data extraction independently. DATA SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 6869 citations. Review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 538 full-text articles for assessment; 40 articles were selected for review. Of these, 20 (50%) articles were cohort studies and 13 (33%) articles were case series. Five articles used control groups, including three before and after case series, a case-control study, and a nonrandomized controlled trial. A total of 115 quality indicators in adult trauma care was identified, predominantly measures of hospital processes (62%) and outcomes (17%) of care. We did not identify any posthospital or secondary injury prevention quality indicators. Reliability was described for two quality indicators, content validity for 22 quality indicators, construct validity for eight quality indicators, and criterion validity for 46 quality indicators. A total of 58 quality indicators was implemented and evaluated in three studies. Eight quality indicators had supporting evidence for more than one measurement domain. A single quality indicator, peer review for preventable death, had both reliability and validity evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Although many quality indicators are available to measure the quality of trauma care, reliability evidence, validity evidence, and description of outcomes after implementation are limited.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.113 | 0.392 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".