↓ Skip to main content

Complication rates as a trauma care performance indicator: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Complication rates as a trauma care performance indicator: a systematic review
Published in
Critical Care, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11680
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynne Moore, Henry Thomas Stelfox, Alexis F Turgeon

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Information on complication rates is essential to trauma quality improvement efforts. However, it is unclear which complications are the most clinically relevant. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether there is consensus on the complications that should be used to evaluate the performance of acute care trauma hospitals. METHODS: We searched the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, BIOSIS, TRIP and ProQuest databases and included studies using at least one nonfatal outcome to evaluate the performance of acute care trauma hospitals. Data were extracted in duplicate using a piloted electronic data abstraction form. Consensus was considered to be reached if a specific complication was used in ≥ 70% of studies (strong recommendation) or in ≥ 50% of studies (weak recommendation). RESULTS: Of 14,521 citations identified, 22 were eligible for inclusion. We observed important heterogeneity in the complications used to evaluate trauma care. Seventy-nine specific complications were identified but none were used in ≥ 70% of studies and only three (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and pneumonia) were used in ≥ 50% of studies. Only one study provided evidence for the clinical relevance of complications used and only five studies (23%) were considered of high methodological quality. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this review, we can make a weak recommendation on three complications that should be used to evaluate acute care trauma hospitals; pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and pneumonia. However, considering the observed disparity in definitions, the lack of clinical justification for the complications used, and the low methodological quality of studies, further research is needed to develop a valid and reliable performance indicator based on complications that can be used to improve the quality and efficiency of trauma care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
France 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 52 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 17 30%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2012.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,211
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,848
of 192,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#82
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.