Mann N C, Mullins R J, MacKenzie E J, Jurkovich G J, Mock C N
Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, School of Medicine, Portland 97201-3098, USA.
J Trauma. 1999 Sep;47(3 Suppl):S25-33. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199909001-00007.
Provide a systematic review of the published literature assessing the affect of trauma center/system implementation on patient outcomes.
A bibliographic search of MEDLINE (1966-May of 1998), HealthSTAR (1995-May of 1998), and CINAHL (1982-May of 1998). Additional manuscripts were identified in the references of reviewed manuscripts. Literature was limited to English language reports on trauma systems in the United States and Canada.
Initial inclusion criteria were based on methodologic criteria (i.e., a comparative [controlled] study). Authors independently assessed the strength of evidence demonstrated by each article.
Included articles were classified into three groups based on study design: panel review studies, trauma registry comparison studies, and population-based studies. Key demographic, sampling frame, study design, and outcome variables were tabulated for each included study. Potential sources of bias were also identified and tabled.
A total of 12, 11, and 17 studies were incorporated into individual evidence tables for panel review, registry comparison, and population-based studies, respectively. Included studies rely on weak evidence (Class III) to assess the impact of trauma systems on patient care and outcome.
To date, studies assessing trauma system efficacy rely on hospital deaths as the primary indicator of effectiveness. Future research should use more sophisticated study designs (Class II) and expand available outcome measures to assess the entire continuum of care, including prehospital, rehabilitation outcomes, and long-term quality of life.
对已发表的文献进行系统综述,评估创伤中心/系统的实施对患者预后的影响。
对MEDLINE(1966年至1998年5月)、HealthSTAR(1995年至1998年5月)和CINAHL(1982年至1998年5月)进行文献检索。在综述文献的参考文献中识别出其他手稿。文献仅限于美国和加拿大关于创伤系统的英文报告。
初始纳入标准基于方法学标准(即比较[对照]研究)。作者独立评估每篇文章所证明的证据强度。
根据研究设计,将纳入的文章分为三组:专家评审研究、创伤登记比较研究和基于人群的研究。为每项纳入研究列出关键人口统计学、抽样框架、研究设计和结局变量。还识别并列出了潜在的偏倚来源。
分别有12项、11项和17项研究被纳入专家评审、登记比较和基于人群研究的单独证据表中。纳入的研究依靠薄弱证据(III级)来评估创伤系统对患者护理和预后的影响。
迄今为止,评估创伤系统疗效的研究依赖医院死亡作为有效性的主要指标。未来的研究应采用更复杂的研究设计(II级),并扩大可用的结局测量指标,以评估整个护理过程,包括院前、康复结局和长期生活质量。