MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610165645 · doi:10.1111/jebm.12256

Prehospital notification for major trauma patients requiring emergency hospital transport: A systematic review

2017· review· en· W2610165645 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
FundersDepartment of Industry and Science, Australian GovernmentAustralia-India Strategic Research FundDepartment of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian GovernmentDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaAustralian Government
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyPsychological interventionEmergency medicineEmergency medical servicesOdds ratioConfidence intervalMajor traumaEmergency departmentMedical emergencyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of prehospital notification systems for major trauma patients on overall (<30 days) and early (<24 hours) mortality, hospital reception, and trauma team presence (or equivalent) on arrival, time to critical interventions, and length of hospital stay. METHODS: Experimental and observational studies of prehospital notification compared with no notification or another type of notification in major trauma patients requiring emergency transport were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ACROBAT-NRSI tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted and evidence quality rated using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Three observational studies of 72,423 major trauma patients were included. All were conducted in high-income countries in hospitals with established trauma services, with two studies undertaking retrospective analysis of registry data. Two studies reported overall mortality, one demonstrating a reduction in mortality; (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.94, 72,073 participants); and the other demonstrating a nonsignificant change (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.64, 81 participants). The quality of this evidence was rated as very low. CONCLUSION: Limited research on the topic constrains conclusive evidence on the effect of prehospital notification on patient-centered outcomes after severe trauma. Composite interventions that combine prehospital notification with effective actions on arrival to hospital such as trauma bay availability, trauma team presence, and early access to definitive management may provide more robust evidence towards benefits of early interventions during trauma reception and resuscitation.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.331
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.125 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it