A Systematic Review of the Current State of Trauma Clinical Practice Guidelines in the United States: Timeliness, Relevance, Accessibility, Quality, and Equity
Panshin, M.; Samsamshariat, T.; Zavala, G.; Carpio, Y. T.; Farley, A.; Van Hook, S.; Knight, A.; Gamboa, J.; Simmons, C.; LaGrone, L.
Show abstract
BackgroundClinical Practice Guidance (CPGs) are essential for standardizing trauma care and improving patient outcomes. Trauma clinical guidance in the United States often lacks coordination, timely updates, and applicability beyond academic Level I centers. This systematic review assesses the current state of trauma-related CPGs in the United States by examining their timeliness, relevance, accessibility, quality, and equity. MethodsA systematic database search identified 1766 studies, of which 65 met inclusion criteria. We searched eight databases and 28 trauma societies websites for CPGs published between 2016 and 2024. We utilized MeSH terms to gather protocols, guidelines, and reviews, and evaluated their quality using the National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) criteria. Logistic regression was then used to analyze predictive factors for high-quality guideline creation. ResultsMost authors (96.7%) were affiliated with a Level I trauma center, with significant contributions from Trauma Region 3. Fifty-five (84.6%) CPGs were sponsored by professional societies, most commonly by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST). Eighty-three percent of included guidance was open access without requiring registration. The average cost of the remaining CPGs was 46.16 USD (SD 14.21). The mean NEATS score was 4.02 {+/-} 1.01. Logistic regression showed that high-quality guidance was significantly associated with the inclusion of methodological experts (p=0.03) and funding disclosures (p=0.04). ConclusionsTrauma CPGs are primarily produced by academic institutions affiliated with Level I trauma centers and are commonly endorsed by a professional trauma society. While most guidance is open access, there is an opportunity to enhance their quality, accessibility, and applicability, particularly in lower-resourced settings.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A mixed methods study protocol to develop and pilot a Competency Assessment Tool to support therapists in the care of patients with blunt CHest trauma (CATCh Study) 95%
- Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: a systematic review protocol 93%
- Surgery & COVID-19: A rapid scoping review of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical services during public health emergencies 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Mortality and outcomes after decompressive craniectomy in children with severe traumatic brain injury 95%
- Natural Progression of Routine Laboratory Markers following Spinal Trauma: A Longitudinal, Multi-Cohort Study 93%
- Comparison of common outcome measures for assessing independence in patients diagnosed with disorders of consciousness: A Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Emergency Medical Services resource capacity and competency amid COVID-19 in the United States: Preliminary findings from a national survey 93%
- Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine: Insights from a Large-Scale International Cross-Sectional Survey of Surgery Researchers and Clinicians 92%
- Effect of xenon and argon inhalation on erythropoiesis and steroidogenesis: a systematic review 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.