MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406757498 · doi:10.1016/j.injury.2025.112182

Has the documentation of chest injuries and the development of systemic complications in patients with long bone fractures changed over time?–A systematic literature review and meta-analysis by the IMPACT expert group

2025· review· en· W4406757498 on OpenAlexaff
Basil Hatz, Felix Karl-Ludwig Klingebiel, Yannik Kalbas, Sascha Halvachizadeh, Roman Pfeifer, Emil H. Schemitsch, Hans‐Christoph Pape

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationMedicineMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewMedical emergencyMEDLINEComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Blunt chest trauma represents a major risk factor for complications in polytrauma patients. Various scoring systems have emerged, but their impact is not fully appreciated. This review evaluates changes in chest trauma scoring over time and potential shifts in complication rates linked to modified surgical approaches in long bone fractures. METHODS: A systematic review was performed utilizing Medline and EMBASE. Included studies analyzed the clinical course following blunt chest trauma with orthopedic injuries requiring surgical fixation. Quantification of chest injury severity was assessed based on the utilized scores in the respective publication such as the Abbreviated Injury Scale, Injury Severity Score, Thoracic Trauma Score (TTS) or the Chest Trauma Score (CTS). The studies were categorized into two groups: "ante-millenium" (AM) (<31.12.2000) and "post-millenium" (PM) (>01.01.2000). Endpoint analysis focused on chest-injury-related complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), pneumonia, multiple organ failure (MOF), and pulmonary embolism. A meta-analysis examined the influence of surgical timing (early vs. late) on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of 9,682 studies on chest trauma, 20 (4,079 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in both AM and PM reported the thoracic AIS scale for severity assessment. In group PM more clinical parameters were included in the decision making. Incidences of pooled and weighted mortality were higher in AM (5.1 %) compared to PM (2.3 %, p = 0.003), and ARDS incidence was also greater in AM (12.1 %) versus PM (8.9 %, p = 0.045), though these findings were not confirmed through indirect meta-analysis. Early fracture fixation (<24 h) displayed a non-significant trend toward lower ARDS (OR: 0.60; 95 % CI, 0.23-1.52) and mortality (OR: 0.66; 95 % CI, 0.28-1.55), but significantly reduced pneumonia risk (OR, 0.53; 95 % CI, 0.40-0.71). CONCLUSION: Prior to 2000, chest injuries were quantified using the AIS alone, while afterwards multiple scoring systems that incorporated pathophysiologic response were utilized. Possibly related to changes in timing of surgery, fixation techniques, or general improvements in-patient care seems to have improved in patients with concomitant thoracic trauma regarding mortality and ARDS. Overall, polytrauma patients with concomitant thoracic injuries might benefit from early definitive fracture care if their physiology and overall injury pattern allows it. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review; Level IV.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjurySame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207