Cargando…

Heterogeneity in defining multiple trauma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION: While numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in the field of trauma, a substantial portion of them are yielding negative results. One potential contributing factor to this trend could be the lack of agreement regarding the chosen definitions across different t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jeanmougin, Thomas, Cole, Elaine, Duceau, Baptiste, Raux, Mathieu, James, Arthur
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10515068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37736733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04637-w
_version_ 1785108867584098304
author Jeanmougin, Thomas
Cole, Elaine
Duceau, Baptiste
Raux, Mathieu
James, Arthur
author_facet Jeanmougin, Thomas
Cole, Elaine
Duceau, Baptiste
Raux, Mathieu
James, Arthur
author_sort Jeanmougin, Thomas
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: While numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in the field of trauma, a substantial portion of them are yielding negative results. One potential contributing factor to this trend could be the lack of agreement regarding the chosen definitions across different trials. The primary objective was to identify the terminology and definitions utilized for the characterization of multiple trauma patients within randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov between January 1, 2002, and July 31, 2022. RCTs or RTCs protocols were eligible if they included multiple trauma patients. The terms employed to characterize patient populations were identified, and the corresponding definitions for these terms were extracted. The subsequent impact on the population recruited was then documented to expose clinical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fifty RCTs were included, and 12 different terms identified. Among these terms, the most frequently used were “multiple trauma” (n = 21, 42%), "severe trauma" (n = 8, 16%), "major trauma" (n = 4, 8%), and trauma with hemorrhagic shock" (n = 4, 8%). Only 62% of RCTs (n = 31) provided a definition for the terms used, resulting a total of 21 different definitions. These definitions primarily relied on the injury severity score (ISS) (n = 15, 30%), displaying an important underlying heterogeneity. The choice of the terms had an impact on the study population, affecting both the ISS and in-hospital mortality. Eleven protocols were included, featuring five different terms, with "severe trauma" being the most frequent, occurring six times (55%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review uncovers an important heterogeneity both in the terms and in the definitions employed to recruit trauma patients within RCTs. These findings underscore the imperative of promoting the use of a unique and consistent definition. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-023-04637-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10515068
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105150682023-09-23 Heterogeneity in defining multiple trauma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials Jeanmougin, Thomas Cole, Elaine Duceau, Baptiste Raux, Mathieu James, Arthur Crit Care Research INTRODUCTION: While numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in the field of trauma, a substantial portion of them are yielding negative results. One potential contributing factor to this trend could be the lack of agreement regarding the chosen definitions across different trials. The primary objective was to identify the terminology and definitions utilized for the characterization of multiple trauma patients within randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov between January 1, 2002, and July 31, 2022. RCTs or RTCs protocols were eligible if they included multiple trauma patients. The terms employed to characterize patient populations were identified, and the corresponding definitions for these terms were extracted. The subsequent impact on the population recruited was then documented to expose clinical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fifty RCTs were included, and 12 different terms identified. Among these terms, the most frequently used were “multiple trauma” (n = 21, 42%), "severe trauma" (n = 8, 16%), "major trauma" (n = 4, 8%), and trauma with hemorrhagic shock" (n = 4, 8%). Only 62% of RCTs (n = 31) provided a definition for the terms used, resulting a total of 21 different definitions. These definitions primarily relied on the injury severity score (ISS) (n = 15, 30%), displaying an important underlying heterogeneity. The choice of the terms had an impact on the study population, affecting both the ISS and in-hospital mortality. Eleven protocols were included, featuring five different terms, with "severe trauma" being the most frequent, occurring six times (55%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review uncovers an important heterogeneity both in the terms and in the definitions employed to recruit trauma patients within RCTs. These findings underscore the imperative of promoting the use of a unique and consistent definition. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-023-04637-w. BioMed Central 2023-09-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10515068/ /pubmed/37736733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04637-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Jeanmougin, Thomas
Cole, Elaine
Duceau, Baptiste
Raux, Mathieu
James, Arthur
Heterogeneity in defining multiple trauma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
title Heterogeneity in defining multiple trauma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
title_full Heterogeneity in defining multiple trauma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Heterogeneity in defining multiple trauma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Heterogeneity in defining multiple trauma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
title_short Heterogeneity in defining multiple trauma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
title_sort heterogeneity in defining multiple trauma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10515068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37736733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04637-w
work_keys_str_mv AT jeanmouginthomas heterogeneityindefiningmultipletraumaasystematicreviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT coleelaine heterogeneityindefiningmultipletraumaasystematicreviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT duceaubaptiste heterogeneityindefiningmultipletraumaasystematicreviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT rauxmathieu heterogeneityindefiningmultipletraumaasystematicreviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT jamesarthur heterogeneityindefiningmultipletraumaasystematicreviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrials