Cargando…
Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews
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 e...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9814503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36600301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00472-6 |
_version_ | 1784864148681654272 |
---|---|
author | Gianola, Silvia Bargeri, Silvia Biffi, Annalisa Cimbanassi, Stefania D’Angelo, Daniela Coclite, Daniela Facchinetti, Gabriella Fauci, Alice Josephine Ferrara, Carla Di Nitto, Marco Napoletano, Antonello Punzo, Ornella Ranzato, Katya Tratsevich, Alina Iannone, Primiano Castellini, Greta Chiara, Osvaldo |
author_facet | Gianola, Silvia Bargeri, Silvia Biffi, Annalisa Cimbanassi, Stefania D’Angelo, Daniela Coclite, Daniela Facchinetti, Gabriella Fauci, Alice Josephine Ferrara, Carla Di Nitto, Marco Napoletano, Antonello Punzo, Ornella Ranzato, Katya Tratsevich, Alina Iannone, Primiano Castellini, Greta Chiara, Osvaldo |
author_sort | Gianola, Silvia |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-022-00472-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9814503 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98145032023-01-06 Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews Gianola, Silvia Bargeri, Silvia Biffi, Annalisa Cimbanassi, Stefania D’Angelo, Daniela Coclite, Daniela Facchinetti, Gabriella Fauci, Alice Josephine Ferrara, Carla Di Nitto, Marco Napoletano, Antonello Punzo, Ornella Ranzato, Katya Tratsevich, Alina Iannone, Primiano Castellini, Greta Chiara, Osvaldo World J Emerg Surg Review 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-022-00472-6. BioMed Central 2023-01-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9814503/ /pubmed/36600301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00472-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 | Review Gianola, Silvia Bargeri, Silvia Biffi, Annalisa Cimbanassi, Stefania D’Angelo, Daniela Coclite, Daniela Facchinetti, Gabriella Fauci, Alice Josephine Ferrara, Carla Di Nitto, Marco Napoletano, Antonello Punzo, Ornella Ranzato, Katya Tratsevich, Alina Iannone, Primiano Castellini, Greta Chiara, Osvaldo Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews |
title | Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews |
title_full | Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews |
title_fullStr | Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews |
title_full_unstemmed | Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews |
title_short | Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews |
title_sort | structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9814503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36600301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00472-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gianolasilvia structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT bargerisilvia structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT biffiannalisa structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT cimbanassistefania structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT dangelodaniela structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT coclitedaniela structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT facchinettigabriella structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT faucialicejosephine structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT ferraracarla structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT dinittomarco structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT napoletanoantonello structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT punzoornella structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT ranzatokatya structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT tratsevichalina structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT iannoneprimiano structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT castellinigreta structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT chiaraosvaldo structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews AT structuredapproachwithprimaryandsecondarysurveyformajortraumacareanoverviewofreviews |