Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews.
Advanced trauma life support care
Checklist
Diagnostic imaging
Emergency medicine
GRADE approach
Meta-analysis as topic
Structured approach
Systematic reviews
Journal
World journal of emergency surgery : WJES
ISSN: 1749-7922
Titre abrégé: World J Emerg Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101266603
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 01 2023
04 01 2023
Historique:
received:
09
11
2022
accepted:
25
12
2022
entrez:
4
1
2023
pubmed:
5
1
2023
medline:
7
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A structured approach involves systematic management of trauma patients. We aim to conduct an overview of reviews about the clinical efficacy and safety of structured approach (i.e., primary and secondary survey) by guideline checklist compared to non-structured approach (i.e. clinical examination); moreover, routine screening whole-body computer tomography (WBCT) was compared to non-routine WBCT in patients with suspected major trauma. We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to 3 May 2022. Systematic reviews (SRs) that investigated the use of a structured approach compared to a non-structured approach were eligible. Two authors independently extracted data, managed the overlapping of primary studies belonging to the included SRs and calculated the corrected covered area (CCA). The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We included nine SRs investigating two comparisons in stable trauma patients: structured approach vs non-structured approach (n = 1) and routine WBCT vs non-routine WBCT (n = 8). The overlap of included primary studies was generally high across outcomes (CCA ranged between 20.85 and 42.86%) with some discrepancies in the directions of effects across reviews. The application of a structured approach by checklist may improve adherence to guidelines (e.g. Advanced Trauma Life Support) during resuscitation and might lead to a reduction in mortality among severely injured patients as compared to clinical examination (Adjusted OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.30-0.89; p = 0.018; low certainty of evidence). The use of routine WBCT seems to offer little to no effects in reducing mortality and time spent in emergency room or department, whereas non-routine WBCT seems to offer little to no effects in reducing radiation dose, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS (low-to-moderate certainty of evidence). The application of structured approach by checklist during trauma resuscitation may improve patient- and process-related outcomes. Including non-routine WBCT seems to offer the best trade-offs between benefits and harm. Clinicians should consider these findings in the light of their clinical context, the volume of patients in their facilities, the need for time management, and costs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A structured approach involves systematic management of trauma patients. We aim to conduct an overview of reviews about the clinical efficacy and safety of structured approach (i.e., primary and secondary survey) by guideline checklist compared to non-structured approach (i.e. clinical examination); moreover, routine screening whole-body computer tomography (WBCT) was compared to non-routine WBCT in patients with suspected major trauma.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to 3 May 2022. Systematic reviews (SRs) that investigated the use of a structured approach compared to a non-structured approach were eligible. Two authors independently extracted data, managed the overlapping of primary studies belonging to the included SRs and calculated the corrected covered area (CCA). The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
RESULTS
We included nine SRs investigating two comparisons in stable trauma patients: structured approach vs non-structured approach (n = 1) and routine WBCT vs non-routine WBCT (n = 8). The overlap of included primary studies was generally high across outcomes (CCA ranged between 20.85 and 42.86%) with some discrepancies in the directions of effects across reviews. The application of a structured approach by checklist may improve adherence to guidelines (e.g. Advanced Trauma Life Support) during resuscitation and might lead to a reduction in mortality among severely injured patients as compared to clinical examination (Adjusted OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.30-0.89; p = 0.018; low certainty of evidence). The use of routine WBCT seems to offer little to no effects in reducing mortality and time spent in emergency room or department, whereas non-routine WBCT seems to offer little to no effects in reducing radiation dose, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS (low-to-moderate certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
The application of structured approach by checklist during trauma resuscitation may improve patient- and process-related outcomes. Including non-routine WBCT seems to offer the best trade-offs between benefits and harm. Clinicians should consider these findings in the light of their clinical context, the volume of patients in their facilities, the need for time management, and costs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36600301
doi: 10.1186/s13017-022-00472-6
pii: 10.1186/s13017-022-00472-6
pmc: PMC9814503
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1151-1210
pubmed: 28919116
J Trauma. 2010 Sep;69(3):532-6; discussion 536
pubmed: 20838122
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 23;(12):CD009743
pubmed: 24363034
Intern Emerg Med. 2012 Dec;7(6):563-8
pubmed: 22941412
J Trauma Nurs. 2002 Jan-Mar;9(1):5
pubmed: 15997618
World J Surg. 2014 Sep;38(9):2273-8
pubmed: 24770906
Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222
pubmed: 33069326
Crit Care. 2013 Aug 27;17(4):R178
pubmed: 24025196
Lancet. 2009 Apr 25;373(9673):1408-9
pubmed: 19321200
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6
pubmed: 21208779
Injury. 2020 Feb;51(2):136-141
pubmed: 31679834
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018 Feb;24(1):55-61
pubmed: 29140964
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;81:101-110
pubmed: 27713072
Resuscitation. 2014 Jan;85(1):19-20
pubmed: 23954660
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2002 Jul-Sep;6(3):299-305
pubmed: 12109572
Syst Rev. 2019 Dec 23;8(1):335
pubmed: 31870434
J Altern Complement Med. 2019 May;25(5):475-502
pubmed: 30892910
Emerg Med J. 2009 Jan;26(1):23-7
pubmed: 19104091
J Trauma. 2007 Jan;62(1):133-41
pubmed: 17215744
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Feb;46(1):65-72
pubmed: 31392359
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:106-10
pubmed: 26341023
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Mar;68(3):246-56
pubmed: 25533151
Br J Surg. 2012 Jan;99 Suppl 1:52-8
pubmed: 22441856
Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Jan;35(1):13-19
pubmed: 27773351
Updates Surg. 2022 Feb;74(1):343-353
pubmed: 35001252
Am J Emerg Med. 1996 Oct;14(6):564-9
pubmed: 8857806
Eur J Radiol. 2020 Aug;129:109099
pubmed: 32563164
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 Feb;86(2):314-320
pubmed: 30376536
World J Emerg Surg. 2013 Oct 02;8(1):39
pubmed: 24088362
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2014 Sep 02;22:54
pubmed: 25178942
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Aug 22;(8):CD004173
pubmed: 25146524
Res Synth Methods. 2020 Jan;11(1):134-145
pubmed: 31823513
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014 Oct;77(4):534-9
pubmed: 25250591
Emerg Med J. 2014 Feb;31(2):101-8
pubmed: 23314211
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Sep;95(37):e4653
pubmed: 27631215
Injury. 2013 Sep;44(9):1241-5
pubmed: 22658421
Lancet. 2016 Aug 13;388(10045):673-83
pubmed: 27371185
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 18;12(4):e057504
pubmed: 35437251
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):368-75
pubmed: 24581293
BMJ. 2022 Aug 9;378:e070849
pubmed: 35944924
J Inj Violence Res. 2015 Jul;7(2):64-74
pubmed: 26104319
Lancet. 2009 Apr 25;373(9673):1455-61
pubmed: 19321199
Injury. 2017 Aug;48(8):1784-1793
pubmed: 28610777
World J Surg. 2014 Feb;38(2):322-9
pubmed: 24136720