Suppr超能文献

坎帕拉创伤评分:20 年的记录。

The Kampala Trauma Score: A 20-year track record.

机构信息

From the Department of Geography (L.R.), Department of Geography (N.S.), Simon Fraser University; Department of Surgery (M.S.H.), University of British Columbia; Division of General Surgery (M.S.H.), Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, Canada; The Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute (R.B.); The Injury Control Center (R.B.), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; and The Canadian Network for International Surgery (R.L.); Department of Surgery (R.L.), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

出版信息

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022 Jun 1;92(6):e132-e138. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003567. Epub 2022 Feb 21.

Abstract

Quantifying the severity of traumatic injury has been foundational for the standardization of outcomes, quality improvement research, and health policy throughout the evolution of trauma care systems. Many injury severity scores are difficult to calculate and implement, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where human resources are limited. The Kampala Trauma Score (KTS)-a simplification of the Trauma Injury Severity Score-was developed in 2000 to accommodate these settings. Since its development, numerous instances of KTS use have been documented, but extent of adoption is unknown. More importantly, does the KTS remain useful for determining injury severity in LMICs? This review aims to better understand the legacy of the KTS and assess its strengths and weaknesses. Three databases were searched to identify scientific papers concerning the KTS. Google Scholar was searched to identify grey literature. The search returned 357 papers, of which 199 met inclusion criteria. Eighty-five studies spanning 16 countries used the KTS in clinical settings. Thirty-seven studies validated the KTS, assessing its ability to predict outcomes such as mortality or need for admission. Over 80% of these studies reported the KTS equalled or exceeded more complicated scores at predicting mortality. The KTS has stood the test of time, proving itself over the last twenty years as an effective measure of injury severity across numerous contexts. We recommend the KTS as a means of strengthening trauma systems in LMICs and suggest it could benefit high-income trauma systems that do not measure injury severity.

摘要

量化创伤严重程度是创伤护理系统发展过程中实现结果标准化、改善质量研究和制定卫生政策的基础。许多创伤严重程度评分计算和实施起来都很困难,特别是在人力资源有限的低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)。坎帕拉创伤评分(KTS)是 2000 年为适应这些情况而简化的创伤损伤严重程度评分。自其发展以来,已经有许多 KTS 使用的实例被记录下来,但采用程度尚不清楚。更重要的是,KTS 对于确定 LMICs 中的创伤严重程度是否仍然有用?本综述旨在更好地了解 KTS 的历史,并评估其优缺点。在三个数据库中搜索有关 KTS 的科学论文。在 Google Scholar 上搜索以识别灰色文献。搜索返回了 357 篇论文,其中 199 篇符合纳入标准。85 项研究在临床环境中使用了 KTS。37 项研究验证了 KTS,评估其预测死亡率或住院需求等结果的能力。这些研究中有超过 80%报告 KTS 在预测死亡率方面与更复杂的评分相当或超过。KTS 经受住了时间的考验,在过去的二十年中,它证明了自己在众多情况下都是一种有效的创伤严重程度衡量标准。我们建议将 KTS 作为加强 LMIC 中创伤系统的一种手段,并建议它可以使那些不衡量创伤严重程度的高收入创伤系统受益。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验