Anesthesia Trauma Guidelines: A Systematic Review of Global Accessibility and Quality
Authors' conclusion
Though many countries and societies have contributed to the development of anesthesia CPGs for trauma, there has been a disproportionate lack of representation from LMICs, where the burden of trauma mortality is highest.
Study context
- Population
- Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the anesthetic management of trauma, 2010 to 2023guidelines included
- Participants
- 165 guidelines
- Outcome
- Accessibility and quality (NEATS) of anesthesia trauma CPGs
Methodological detailsPRISMA, NEATS quality appraisal, logistic regression, Search of 8 databases; 2426 articles identified
- PRISMA
- NEATS quality appraisal
- Logistic regression
- Search of 8 databases; 2426 articles identified
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Authors from Europe
- 61%
- Authors from Africa
- 4%
- CPGs with a first or last author from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC)
- 12%
- Open access CPGs
- 70%
- Average cost for paid access
- US$36.61
- Average NEATS score (of 5); overall quality moderately high
- 3.13
Further pooled results
Guideline development
- Professional societies
- 122
- Countries of authors
- 51
- Languages identified (English most common)
- 8
- Most common topics: blood and fluid management, shock, airway management
Original publication
Anesthesia Trauma Guidelines: A Systematic Review of Global Accessibility and Quality. Anesth Analg. Published 24 January 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →