MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6965269369 · doi:10.26181/23633442

International Perspectives of Prehospital and Hospital Trauma Services: A Literature Review

2022· article· en· W6965269369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLa Trobe University · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionEmergency medical servicesTrauma careLegislationGrey literatureMajor traumaIncidence (geometry)Trauma centerOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Evidence suggests that reductions in the incidence in trauma observed in some countries are related to interventions including legislation around road and vehicle safety measures, public behaviour change campaigns, and changes in trauma response systems. This study aims to briefly review recent refereed and grey literature about prehospital and hospital trauma care services in different regions around the world and describe similarities and differences in identified systems to demonstrate the diversity of characteristics present. Methods: Articles published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE. Since detailed comparable information was lacking in the published literature, prehospital emergency service providers’ annual performance reports from selected example countries or regions were reviewed to obtain additional information about the performance of prehospital care. Results: The review retained 34 studies from refereed literature related to trauma systems in different regions. In the U.S. and Canada, the trauma care facilities consisted of five different levels of trauma centres ranging from Level I to Level IV and Level I to Level V, respectively. Hospital care and organisation in Japan is different from the U.S. model, with no dedicated trauma centres; however, patients with severe injury are transported to university hospitals’ emergency departments. Other similarities and differences in regional examples were observed. Conclusions: The refereed literature was dominated by research from developed countries such as Australia, Canada, and the U.S., which all have organised trauma systems. Many European countries have implemented trauma systems between the 1990s and 2000s; however, some countries, such as France and Greece, are still forming an integrated system. This review aims to encourage countries with immature trauma systems to consider the similarities and differences in approaches of other countries to implementing a trauma system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0200.031
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLa Trobe UniversitySame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207