Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Polytrauma: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Tools assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after polytrauma have not been systematically reviewed so far. Therefore, we sought to: (1) collect instruments that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), activities of daily living (ADL), and social participation during follow-up after polytrauma, (2) describe their use (e.g. frequency of application during follow-up), and (3) investigate other relevant PROs assessed in the included studies (e.g. pain, depression, anxiety).Methods: The search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. All original empirical research published between January 2005 and April 2018 was included. Data extraction, narrative content analysis, and a critical appraisal were performed.Results: The search yielded 3496 hits and 54 publications were included in the review. Predominantly, HRQoL was assessed (in 48 of 54 publications), with Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) applied most frequently. ADL and (social) participation were rarely assessed. The follow-up period lasted between 8 days and 17.5 years; assessments were performed between one and five times. Most used were a single assessment of PROs, a follow-up period of 1 to 1.5 years, and a postal survey. Other relevant PRO areas reported were function, mental disorders, and pain.Conclusions: There is a large variation in the assessment of PROs after polytrauma, impairing comparability of outcomes. First efforts to standardise the collection of PROs have been initiated, but further harmonisation between central players, such as trauma registers, is required. Definition and continuous collection of core outcome sets would improve comparability of study results, creating the basis for more targeted treatment. Additional knowledge on rarely reported PRO areas like (social) participation and social network may lead to their consideration in health services provision.Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42017060825)
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 | 0.018 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".