↓ Skip to main content

Development of a new Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol for trauma patients and a test of applicability by German emergency care providers

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 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
Development of a new Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol for trauma patients and a test of applicability by German emergency care providers
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0267-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Kreinest, Bernhard Gliwitzky, Svenja Schüler, Paul A. Grützner, Matthias Münzberg

Abstract

In order to match the challenges of quickly recognizing and treating any life-threatening injuries, the ABCDE principles were established for the assessment and treatment of trauma patients. The high priority of spine protection is emphasized by the fact that immobilization of the cervical spine is performed at the very first step in the ABCDE principles. Immobilization is typically performed to prevent or minimize secondary damage to the spinal cord if instability of the spinal column is suspected. Due to increasing reports about disadvantages of spinal immobilization, the indications for performing spinal immobilization must be refined. The aim of this study was (i) to develop a protocol that supports decision-making for spinal immobilization in adult trauma patients and (ii) to carry out the first applicability test by emergency medical personnel. A structured literature search considering the literature from 1980 to 2014 was performed. Based on this literature and on the current guidelines, a new protocol that supports on scene decision-making for spinal immobilization has been developed. Parameters found in the literature concerning mechanisms and factors increasing the likelihood of spinal injury have been included in the new protocol. In order to test the applicability of the new protocol two surveys were performed on German emergency care providers by means of a questionnaire focused on correct decision-making if applying the protocol. Based on the current literature and guidelines, the Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol (E.M.S. IMMO Protocol) for adult trauma patients was developed. Following a fist applicability test involving 21 participants, the first version of the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol has to be graphically re-organized. A second applicability test comprised 50 participants with the current version of the protocol confirmed good applicability. Questions regarding immobilization of trauma patients could be answered properly using the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol. Current literature increasingly reports of disadvantages that may be associated with immobilization. Based on the requirements of the current guidelines, a new protocol that supports decision-making for indications for out-of-hospital spinal immobilization has been developed in this study. In contrast to established protocols, the new protocol offers different options for immobilization as well as a decicion-support. The E.M.S. IMMO protocol provides a decision-support tool for indications for spinal immobilization in adult trauma patients that permits variable decision-making depending on the current condition of the trauma patient and the pattern of injuries for immobilization in general and for immobilization method in particular.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 202 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 46 22%
Student > Master 31 15%
Other 12 6%
Researcher 12 6%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 69 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 60 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 52 25%
Engineering 5 2%
Unspecified 3 1%
Neuroscience 3 1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 71 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 06 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,264,995
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#226
of 1,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,995
of 313,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#5
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 313,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.