Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 21, 2025
Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Effectiveness of trauma centre verification: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Brice Batomen1, Lynne Moore1, Mabel Carabali1
1From the Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Que. (Batomen, Carabali); the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que. (Moore) and the Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, Trauma - Emergency - Critical Care Medicine, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Québec, Que. (Moore, Tardif); the Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md. (Champion); and the Institute for Health and Social Policy, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Que. (Nandi).
Background:
There is a growing trend toward verification of trauma centres, but its impact remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness of trauma centre verification.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic search of the CINAHL, Embase, HealthStar, MEDLINE and ProQuest databases, as well as the websites of key injury organizations for grey literature, from inception to June 2019, without language restrictions. Our population consisted of injured patients treated at trauma centres. The intervention was trauma centre verification. Comparison groups comprised nonverified trauma centres, or the same centre before it was first verified or re-verified. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included adverse events, resource use and processes of care. We computed pooled summary estimates using random-effects meta-analysis.
Results:
Of 5125 citations identified, 29, all conducted in the United States, satisfied our inclusion criteria. Mortality was the most frequently investigated outcome (n = 20), followed by processes of care (n = 12), resource use (n = 12) and adverse events (n = 7). The risk of bias was serious to critical in 22 studies. We observed an imprecise association between verification and decreased mortality (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.06) in severely injured patients.
Conclusion:
Our review showed mixed and inconsistent associations between verification and processes of care or patient outcomes. The validity of the published literature is limited by the lack of robust controls, as well as any evidence from outside the US, which precludes extrapolation to other health care jurisdictions. Quasiexperimental studies are needed to assess the impact of trauma centre verification.
Systematic Reviews Registration:
PROSPERO no. CRD42018107083.
