Tiao Judith, Moore Lynne, Boutin Amélie, Turgeon Alexis F
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine;, Université Laval, Québec, Canada ; Axe Santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé (traumatologie-urgence-soins intensifs), Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec - Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Axe Santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé (traumatologie-urgence-soins intensifs), Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec - Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2014 Jul;7(3):209-14. doi: 10.4103/0974-2700.136867.
Risk-adjusted mortality is widely used to benchmark trauma center care. Patients presenting with isolated hip fractures (IHFs) are usually excluded from these evaluations. However, there is no standardized definition of an IHF. We aimed to evaluate whether there is consensus on the definition of an IHF used as an exclusion criterion in studies evaluating the performance of trauma centers in terms of mortality.
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, TRIP Database, and PROQUEST for cohort studies that presented data on mortality to assess the performance of trauma centers and excluded IHF. A standardized, piloted data abstraction form was used to extract data on study settings, IHF definitions and methodological quality of included studies. Consensus was considered to be reached if more than 50% of studies used the same definition of IHF.
We identified 8,506 studies of which 11 were eligible for inclusion. Only two studies (18%) used the same definition of an IHF. Three (27%) used a definition based on Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) Codes and five (45%) on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Four (36%) studies had inclusion criteria based on age, five (45%) on secondary injuries, and four (36%) on the mechanism of injury. Eight studies (73%) had good overall methodological quality.
We observed important heterogeneity in the definition of an IHF used as an exclusion criterion in studies evaluating the performance of trauma centers. Consensus on a standardized definition is needed to improve the validity of evaluations of the quality of trauma care.
风险调整死亡率被广泛用于评估创伤中心的医疗水平。孤立性髋部骨折(IHF)患者通常被排除在这些评估之外。然而,目前尚无关于IHF的标准化定义。我们旨在评估在评估创伤中心死亡率表现的研究中,作为排除标准的IHF定义是否存在共识。
我们对观察性研究进行了系统评价。在电子数据库MEDLINE、EMBASE、BIOSIS、Cochrane图书馆、CINAHL、TRIP数据库和PROQUEST中检索队列研究,这些研究提供了死亡率数据以评估创伤中心的表现,并排除了IHF。使用标准化的、经过预试验的数据提取表来提取关于研究背景、IHF定义以及纳入研究的方法学质量的数据。如果超过50%的研究使用相同的IHF定义,则认为达成了共识。
我们共识别出8506项研究,其中11项符合纳入标准。只有两项研究(18%)使用了相同的IHF定义。三项研究(27%)使用基于简明损伤定级(AIS)编码的定义,五项研究(45%)使用基于国际疾病分类(ICD)编码的定义。四项研究(36%)的纳入标准基于年龄,五项研究(45%)基于继发性损伤,四项研究(36%)基于损伤机制。八项研究(73%)的整体方法学质量良好。
在评估创伤中心表现的研究中,我们观察到作为排除标准的IHF定义存在重要的异质性。需要就标准化定义达成共识,以提高创伤护理质量评估的有效性。