Search

Abstract: The National Trauma Research Action Plan project successfully engaged multidisciplinary experts to define opportunities to advance trauma research and has fulfilled the recommendations related to trauma research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report. These panels identified more than 4,800 gaps in our knowledge regarding injury prevention and the optimal care of injured patients and laid out a priority framework and tools to support researchers to advance this field. Trauma research funding agencies and researchers can use this executive summary and supporting manuscripts to strategically address and close the highest priority research gaps. Given that this is the most significant public health threat facing our children, young adults, and military service personnel, we must do better in prioritizing these research projects for funding and providing grant support to advance this work. Through the Coalition for National Trauma Research, the trauma community is committed to a coordinated, collaborative approach to address these critical knowledge gaps and ultimately reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality faced by our patients., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report calling for a National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) requiring a resourced, coordinated, joint approach to trauma care research. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report recommended the identification of regulatory barriers to trauma research. The NTRAP Regulatory Challenges Panel of trauma researchers and regulatory professionals was convened to identify the most challenging aspects of regulatory processes involved in conducting research., Methods: Trauma researchers and regulatory experts were recruited to identify and rate challenging regulatory issues in 2021 to 2022. Challenge statements were developed from a comprehensive scoping review. Panelists rated the challenge level for each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. The Delphi survey was conducted over three online rounds. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥60% agreement. Results of the Delphi survey were presented to the panel during a webinar. Panel participants then participated in breakout sessions to strategize solutions, share lessons learned, and identify where more regulatory guidance is needed., Results: Thirty-eight subject matter experts rated 175 regulatory challenges, of which 141 (81%) reached the consensus threshold. Of the consensus-reaching challenge statements, 42 had a challenge rating of 6 or higher. Among the highest-rated challenges were issues pertaining to conducting prehospital research, exception from informed consent, mistrust of research among various racial and ethnic groups, and issues specific to conducting pediatric trauma research., Conclusion: This Delphi survey rated challenges culled from a regulatory literature scoping review. The panel identified the most challenging aspects of human subjects protection while conducting trauma research and recommended strategies and best practices to address them. The findings from this study were used to develop the NTRAP Investigator Toolkit, which is available on the internet as a resource for trauma researchers., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Engaging trauma survivors/caregivers results in research findings that are more relevant to patients' needs and priorities. Although their perspectives increase research significance, there is a lack of understanding about how best to incorporate their insights. We aimed to capture stakeholder perspectives to ensure research is meaningful, respectful, and relevant to the injured patient and their caregivers., Methods: A multiphase, inductive exploratory qualitative study was performed, the first phase of which is described here. Virtual focus groups to elicit stakeholder perspectives and preferences were conducted across 19 trauma centers in the USA during 2022. Discussion topics were chosen to identify patients' motivation to join research studies, preferences regarding consent, suggestions for increasing diversity and access, and feelings regarding outcomes, efficacy, and exception from informed consent. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify the range of perspectives expressed and any common themes that emerged., Results: Ten 90-minute focus groups included patients/caregiver (n=21/1) and researchers (n=14). Data analysis identified common themes emerging across groups. The importance of trust and preexisting relationships with the clinical care team were the most common themes across all groups., Conclusion: Our findings reveal common themes in preferences, motivations, and best practices to increase patient/caregiver participation in trauma research. The project's next phases are distribution of a vignette-based survey to establish broad stakeholder consensus; education and dissemination activities to share strategies that increase research engagement and relevance for patients; and the formation of a panel of patients to support future research endeavors., Level of Evidence: Level IV., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AN: Inova Fairfax Hospital (Employee)—Received grant funding -from PCORI-American Trauma Society (Board member)—Received grant funding from PCORI. KJ: American Trauma Society (Employee)—Received grant funding from PCORI. PB: Coalition for National Trauma Research (Employee)—Received grant funding from PCORI. MAP: Coalition for National Trauma Research (Employee)—Received grant funding from PCORI. RD: Health Alliance for Violence Intervention (Board member). RK: NIH—Payment to institution-DOD—Payment to institution-Air Force—Payment to institution—Royalties for being Associate Editor Trauma textbook-Teaching ATLS—Payment-Honorarium for speaking at Detroit Trauma Symposium—Payment-Service on NIH and DOD grant review panels—Payment-EAST for giving Scott Frame Memorial Lecture—Payment-Cellular Therapeutics in Trauma and Critical Care—Payment-AAST strategic retreat—Payment-WTA-CNTR-Deputy editor J Trauma Acute Care Surgery-Associate editor Trauma Surgery Acute Care Open-Receipt of blood product used in pre-clinical study ERH: PCORI-AHRQ-NIH/NHLBI-CNTR (Board member)-NBCA (Board member)-Editor in Chief, TSACO—Paid DMS: PCORI—Grant-NIH—Grant, Site PI-Air Force—Grant-CNTR/DOD—Grant-NHTSA—Grant-CSL Behring, LLC—Participation in DSMB-Payment for honoraria—Austin Trauma and Critical Care Conference, University of Cincinnati, University of Arizona, University of Texas Southwest/Parkland-Meeting travel—ACS/ASA Health Policy Scholarship, ACS Clinical Congress, EAST Strategic/Tactical Retreat-Patent—Method and Apparatus or Monitoring Collection of Physiological Patient Data-Leadership roles—Past Present EAST, board member EAST, Examiner ABS, Program Committee member/Algorithm Chair WTA, Vice Chair Trauma, Burns, SCC ABS, Geriatric Content Lead ACS ATLS., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality during recovery from injury and can result in significant health care costs. Despite advances in the past several decades in our approach to VTE prophylaxis after injury, opportunities exist to improve the delivery and implementation of optimal VTE prophylaxis. Here, we aim to identify consensus research questions related to VTE across all National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) Delphi expert panels to further guide the research agenda aimed at preventing VTE after injury., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of consensus-based research priorities that were collected using a Delphi methodology by 11 unique NTRAP panels that were charged with unique topic areas across the spectrum of injury care. The database of questions was queried for the keywords "VTE," "venous thromboembo," and "DVT" and then grouped into relevant topic areas., Results: There were 86 VTE-related research questions identified across 9 NTRAP panels. Eighty-five questions reached consensus with 24 rated high priority; 60, medium priority; and 1, low priority. Questions related to the timing of VTE prophylaxis (n = 17) were most common, followed by questions related to risk factors for the development of VTE (n = 16), the effects of tranexamic acid on VTE (n = 11), the approach to dosing of pharmacologic prophylaxis (n = 8), and the pharmacologic prophylactic medication choice for optimal VTE prophylaxis (n = 6)., Conclusion: National Trauma Research Action Plan panelists identified 85 consensus-based research questions that should drive dedicated extramural research funding opportunities to support quality studies aimed at optimizing VTE prophylaxis after injury., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Timely access to specialized trauma care is a vital element in patient outcome after severe and critical injury requiring the skills of trauma teams in levels I and II trauma centers to avoid preventable mortality. We used system-based models to estimate timely access to care., Methods: Trauma system models consisted of ground emergency medical services, helicopter emergency medical services, and designated levels I to V trauma centers were constructed for five states. These models incorporated geographic information systems along with traffic data and census block group data to estimate population access to trauma care within the "golden hour." Trauma systems were further analyzed to identify the optimal location for an additional level I or II trauma center that would provide the greatest increase in access., Results: The population of the states studied totaled 23 million people, of which 20 million (87%) had access to a level I or II trauma center within 60 minutes. Statewide-specific access ranged from 60% to 100%. Including levels III to V trauma centers, access within 60 minutes increased to 22 million (96%), ranging from 95% to 100%. The addition of a levels I and II trauma center in an optimized location in each state would provide timely access to a higher trauma capability for an additional 1.1 million, increasing total access to approximately 21.1 million people (92%)., Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates that nearly universal access to trauma care is present in these states when including levels I to V trauma centers. However, concerning gaps remain in timely access to levels I and II trauma centers. This study provides an approach to determine more robust statewide estimates of access to care. It highlights the need for a national trauma system, one in which all components of state-managed trauma systems are assembled in a national data set to accurately identify gaps in care., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on the trauma care system recommended establishing a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded a study to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the trauma and burn care continuum. Panels were created to conduct a gap analysis and identify high-priority research questions. The National Trauma Research Action Plan panel reported here addressed trauma systems and informatics., Methods: Experts were recruited to identify current gaps in trauma systems research, generate research questions, and establish the priorities using an iterative Delphi survey approach from November 2019 through August 2020. Panelists were identified to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability, including military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: patient/population, intervention, compare/control, and outcome. In subsequent surveys, panelists prioritized each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized as low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% agreement., Results: Twenty-seven subject matter experts generated 570 research questions, of which 427 (75%) achieved the consensus threshold. Of the consensus reaching questions, 209 (49%) were rated high priority, 213 (50%) medium priority, and 5 (1%) low priority. Gaps in understanding the broad array of interventions were identified, including those related to health care infrastructure, technology products, education/training, resuscitation, and operative intervention. The prehospital phase of care was highlighted as an area needing focused research., Conclusion: This Delphi gap analysis of trauma systems and informatics research identified high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators and funding agencies in setting research priorities to continue to work toward Zero Preventable Deaths after trauma., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The complexity of the care environment, the emergent nature, and the severity of patient injury make conducting clinical trauma research challenging. These challenges hamper the ability to investigate potentially life-saving research that aims to deliver pharmacotherapeutics, test medical devices, and develop technologies that may improve patient survival and recovery. Regulations intended to protect research subjects impede scientific advancements needed to treat the critically ill and injured and balancing these regulatory priorities is challenging in the acute setting. This scoping review attempted to systematically identify what regulations are challenging in conducting trauma and emergency research. A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies published between 2007 and 2020, from which 289 articles that address regulatory challenges in conducting research in emergency settings were included. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Most articles identified were editorial/commentary (31%) and published in the USA (49%). Regulatory factors addressed in the papers were categorized under 15 regulatory challenge areas: informed consent (78%), research ethics (65%), institutional review board (55%), human subjects protection (54%), enrollment (53%), exception from informed consent (51%), legally authorized representative (50%), patient safety (41%), community consultation (40%), waiver of informed consent (40%), recruitment challenges (39%), patient perception (30%), liability (15%), participant incentives (13%), and common rule (11%). We identified several regulatory barriers to conducting trauma and emergency research. This summary will support the development of best practices for investigators and funding agencies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Abstract: Trauma patients are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite evidence-based guidelines and concerted efforts in trauma centers to implement optimal chemoprophylaxis strategies, VTE remains a frequent diagnosis in trauma patients. Current chemoprophylaxis strategies largely focus on the subcutaneous injection of low-molecular-weight heparin, which is administered twice daily. Novel approaches to pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis have the potential to reduce VTE rates by improving patient compliance through oral administration or through their ability to target alternative pathways that mediate thrombosis. While novel pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis strategies have been studied in nontrauma patients, there is a paucity of literature in trauma patients where the risk of thrombosis versus hemorrhage must be carefully considered. As a component of the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal VTE Prophylaxis in Trauma, this review provides an update of the novel chemoprophylaxis agents for potential use in trauma patients. Here, we will consider the relative risks and benefits related to the use of these drugs, evaluate the current literature in nontrauma patients, and consider future directions that could potentially improve posttrauma VTE prophylaxis., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major issue in trauma patients. Without prophylaxis, the rate of deep venous thrombosis approaches 60% and even with chemoprophylaxis may be nearly 30%. Advances in VTE reduction are imperative to reduce the burden of this issue in the trauma population. Novel approaches in VTE prevention may include new medications, dosing regimens, and extending prophylaxis to the postdischarge phase of care. Standard dosing regimens of low-molecular-weight heparin are insufficient in trauma, shifting our focus toward alternative dosing strategies to improve prophylaxis. Mixed data suggest that anti-Xa-guided dosage, weight-based dosing, and thromboelastography are among these potential strategies. The concern for VTE in trauma does not end upon discharge, however. The risk for VTE in this population extends well beyond hospitalization. Variable extended thromboprophylaxis regimens using aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants have been suggested to mitigate this prolonged VTE risk, but the ideal approach for outpatient VTE prevention is still unclear. As part of the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma, a multidisciplinary array of participants, including physicians from multiple specialties, pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice providers, and patients met to attack these issues. This paper aims to review the current literature on novel approaches for optimizing VTE prevention in injured patients and identify research gaps that should be investigated to improve VTE rates in trauma., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Disease burden of venous thromboembolism (VTE) without pharmacologic prophylaxis is high in trauma patients. Although VTE prophylaxis guidelines exist, studies on real-world use of VTE prophylaxis in trauma shows limited uptake of guideline recommendations. Despite existing guidelines, reports indicate that VTE prophylaxis implementation across trauma centers is lagging. Implementation barriers of VTE prophylaxis in trauma are multifactorial, and VTE prescribing practices require further optimization. Implementation science methods can help standardize and improve care; well-established approaches in medical and surgical hospitalized patients and their effects on clinical outcomes such as VTE and bleeding complications must be investigated because they apply to trauma patients. Nonadministration of VTE prophylaxis medications in hospitalized patients is associated with VTE events and remains a barrier to providing optimal defect-free care. Further investigations are required for VTE prophylaxis implementation across all trauma populations., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Optimizing prophylaxis against venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) is a critical issue in the care of injured patients. Although these patients are at significant risk of developing VTE, they also present competing concerns related to exacerbation of bleeding from existing injuries. Especially after high-risk trauma, including injuries to the abdominal solid organs, brain, and spine, trauma providers must delineate the time period in which VTE prophylaxis successfully reduces VTE rates without encouraging bleeding. Although existing data are primarily retrospective in nature and further study is required, literature supports early VTE chemoprophylaxis initiation even for severely injured patients. Early initiation is most frequently defined as <48 hours from admission but varies from <24 hours to 72 hours and occasionally refers to time from initial trauma. Prior to chemical VTE prophylaxis initiation in patients at risk for bleeding, an observation period is necessary during which injuries must show themselves to be hemostatic, either clinically or radiographically. In the future, prospective examination of optimal timing of VTE prophylaxis is necessary. Further study of specific subsets of trauma patients will allow for development of effective VTE mitigation strategies based upon collective risks of VTE and hemorrhage progression., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective : Time to care is a determinant of trauma patient outcomes, and timely delivery of trauma care to severely injured patients is critical in reducing mortality. Numerous studies have analyzed access to care using prehospital intervals from a Carr et al. meta-analysis of studies from 1975 to 2005. Carr et al.'s research sought to determine national mean activation and on-scene intervals for trauma patients using contemporary emergency medical services (EMS) records. Since the Carr et al. meta-analysis was published, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) created and refined the National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) database. We sought to perform a modern analysis of prehospital intervals to establish current standards and temporal patterns. Methods: We utilized NEMSIS to analyze EMS data of trauma patients from 2016 to 2019. The dataset comprises more than 94 million EMS records, which we filtered to select for severe trauma and stratified by type of transport and rurality to calculate mean activation and on-scene intervals. Furthermore, we explored the impact of basic life support (BLS) and advanced life support (ALS) of ground units on activation and on-scene time intervals. Results: Mean activation and on-scene intervals for ground transport were statistically different when stratified by rurality. Urban, suburban, and rural ground activation intervals were 2.60 ± 3.94, 2.88 ± 3.89, and 3.33 ± 4.58 minutes, respectively. On-scene intervals were 15.50 ± 10.46, 17.56 ± 11.27, and 18.07 ± 16.13 minutes, respectively. Mean helicopter transport activation time was 13.75 ± 7.44 minutes and on-scene time was 19.42 ± 16.09 minutes. This analysis provides an empirically defined mean for activation and on-scene times for trauma patients based on transport type and rurality. Results from this analysis proved to be significantly longer than the previous analysis, except for helicopter transport on-scene time. Shorter mean intervals were seen in ALS compared to BLS for activation intervals, however ALS on-scene intervals were marginally longer than BLS. Conclusions: With the increasing sophistication of geospatial technologies employed to analyze access to care, these intervals are the most accurate and up-to-date and should be included in access to care models.

Background: In the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on trauma care, the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research was recommended. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on long-term outcomes., Methods: Experts in long-term outcomes were recruited to identify current gaps in long-term trauma outcomes research, generate research questions, and establish the priority for these questions using a consensus-driven, Delphi survey approach from February 2021 to August 2021. Panelists were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability including both military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, panelists were asked to prioritize each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category., Results: Thirty-two subject matter experts generated 482 questions in 17 long-term outcome topic areas. By Round 3 of the Delphi, 359 questions (75%) reached consensus, of which 107 (30%) were determined to be high priority, 252 (70%) medium priority, and 0 (0%) low priority. Substance abuse and pain was the topic area with the highest number of questions. Health services (not including mental health or rehabilitation) (64%), mental health (46%), and geriatric population (43%) were the topic areas with the highest proportion of high-priority questions., Conclusion: This Delphi gap analysis of long-term trauma outcomes research identified 107 high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future long-term outcomes research., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan. In response, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care from prehospital care to rehabilitation as part of an overall strategy to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury. The Postadmission Critical Care Research panel was 1 of 11 panels constituted to develop this research agenda., Methods: We recruited interdisciplinary experts in surgical critical care and recruited them to identify current gaps in clinical critical care research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. The first of four survey rounds asked participants to generate key research questions. On subsequent rounds, we asked survey participants to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category., Results: Twenty-five subject matter experts generated 595 questions. By Round 3, 249 questions reached ≥60% consensus. Of these, 22 questions were high, 185 were medium, and 42 were low priority. The clinical states of hypovolemic shock and delirium were most represented in the high-priority questions. Traumatic brain injury was the only specific injury pattern with a high-priority question., Conclusion: The National Trauma Research Action Plan critical care research panel identified 22 high-priority research questions, which, if answered, would reduce preventable death and disability after injury., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine trauma report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan to "strengthen trauma research and ensure that the resources available for this research are commensurate with the importance of injury and the potential for improvement in patient outcomes." With a contract from the Department of Defense, the Coalition for National Trauma Research created 11 expert panels to address this recommendation, with the goal of developing a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. This report outlines the work of the group focused on pediatric trauma., Methods: Experts in pediatric trauma clinical care and research were recruited to identify gaps in current clinical pediatric trauma research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Using successive surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale categorized to represent priority. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement within the priority category. Priority questions were coded based on a dictionary of 118 National Trauma Research Action Plan taxonomy concepts in 9 categories to support comparative analysis across all panels., Results: Thirty-seven subject matter experts generated 625 questions. A total of 493 questions (79%) reached consensus on priority level. Of those reaching consensus, 159 (32%) were high, 325 (66%) were medium, and 9 (2%) were low priority. The highest priority research questions related to surgical interventions for traumatic brain injury (intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy); the second highest priority was hemorrhagic shock. The prehospital setting was the highest priority phase of care., Conclusion: This diverse panel of experts determined that most significant pediatric trauma research gaps were in traumatic brain injury, hemorrhagic shock, and the prehospital phase of care. These research domains should be top priorities for funding agencies., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic / Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In its 2016 report on trauma care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on injury prevention., Methods: Experts in injury prevention research were recruited to identify current gaps in injury prevention research, generate research questions and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach from December 2019 through September 2020. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with both military and civilian representatives. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to use a Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category., Results: Twenty-eight subject matter experts generated 394 questions in 12 topic areas. By round 3 of the Delphi, 367 (93.1%) questions reached consensus, of which 169 (46.1%) were determined to be high priority, 196 (53.4%) medium priority, and 2 (0.5%) low priority. Among the 169 high priority questions, suicide (29.6%), firearm violence (20.1%), and violence prevention (18.3%) were the most prevalent topic areas., Conclusion: This Delphi gap analysis of injury prevention research identified 169 high priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future injury prevention research. Funding agencies and researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research., Level of Evidence: Therepeutic/Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Injury is the leading cause of death in patients aged 1 to 45 years and contributes to a significant public health burden for individuals of all ages. To achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to improve outcomes for military and civilian trauma patients. Because rapid resuscitation and prompt identification and treatment of injuries are critical in achieving optimal outcomes, a panel of experts was convened to generate high-priority research questions in the areas of acute resuscitation, initial evaluation, imaging, and definitive management on injury., Methods: Forty-three subject matter experts in trauma care and injury research were recruited to perform a gap analysis of current literature and prioritize unanswered research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Four Delphi rounds were conducted to generate research questions and prioritize them using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions were stratified as low, medium, or high priority, with consensus defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. Research questions were coded using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts that were standard across all National Trauma Research Action Plan panels., Results: There were 1,422 questions generated, of which 992 (69.8%) reached consensus. Of the questions reaching consensus, 327 (33.0%) were given high priority, 621 (62.6%) medium priority, and 44 (4.4%) low priority. Pharmaceutical intervention and fluid/blood product resuscitation were most frequently scored as high-priority intervention concepts. Research questions related to traumatic brain injury, vascular injury, pelvic fracture, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis were highly prioritized., Conclusion: This research gap analysis identified more than 300 high-priority research questions within the broad category of Acute Resuscitation, Initial Evaluation, Imaging, and Definitive Management. Research funding should be prioritized to address these high-priority topics in the future., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treating older trauma patients requires a focus on the confluence of age-related physiological changes and the impact of the injury itself. Therefore, the primary way to improve the care of geriatric trauma patients is through the development of universal, systematic multidisciplinary research. To achieve this, the Coalition for National Trauma Research has developed the National Trauma Research Action Plan that has generated a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of geriatric trauma care from prehospital to rehabilitation., Methods: Experts in geriatric trauma care and research were recruited to identify current gaps in clinical geriatric research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines ensuring heterogeneity and generalizability. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. The consensus was defined as more than 60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category., Results: A total of 24 subject matter experts generated questions in 109 key topic areas. After editing for duplication, 514 questions were included in the priority ranking. By round 3, 362 questions (70%) reached 60% consensus. Of these, 161 (44%) were high, 198 (55%) medium, and 3 (1%) low priority., Conclusion: Among the questions prioritized as high priority, questions related to three types of injuries (i.e., rib fracture, traumatic brain injury, and lower extremity injury) occurred with the greatest frequency. Among the 25 highest priority questions, the key topics with the highest frequency were pain management, frailty, and anticoagulation-related interventions. The most common types of research proposed were interventional clinical trials and comparative effectiveness studies, outcome research, and health care systems research., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Until recently, survival has been the main outcome measure for injury research. Given the impact of injury on quality of life, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has called for advancing the science of research evaluating the long-term outcomes of trauma survivors. This is necessary so that treatments and interventions can be assessed for their impact on a trauma patients' long-term functional and psychosocial outcomes. We sought to propose a set of core domains and measurement instruments that are best suited to evaluate long-term outcomes after traumatic injury with a goal for these measures to be adopted as a national standard., Methods: As part of the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan, we conducted a two-stage, five-round modified online Delphi consensus process with a diverse panel of 50 key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, and trauma survivors from more than 9 professional areas across the United States. Before voting, panelists reviewed the results of a scoping review on patient-reported outcomes after injury and standardized information on measurement instruments following the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines., Results: The panel considered a preliminary list of 74 outcome domains (patient-reported outcomes) and ultimately reached the a priori consensus criteria for 29 core domains that encompass aspects of physical, mental, social, and cognitive health. Among these 29 core domains, the panel considered a preliminary list of 199 patient-reported outcome measures and reached the a priori consensus criteria for 14 measures across 13 core domains. Participation of panelists ranged from 65% to 98% across the five Delphi rounds., Conclusion: We developed a core outcome measurement set that will facilitate the synthesis, comparison, and interpretation of long-term trauma outcomes research. These measures should be prioritized in all future studies in which researchers elect to evaluate long-term outcomes of traumatic injury survivors., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2016, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan. The Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. Given the public health burden of injuries to the central nervous system, neurotrauma was one of 11 panels formed to address this recommendation with a gap analysis and generation of high-priority research questions., Methods: We recruited interdisciplinary experts to identify gaps in the neurotrauma literature, generate research questions, and prioritize those questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. We conducted four Delphi rounds in which participants generated key research questions and then prioritized the importance of the questions on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. We then coded research questions using an National Trauma Research Action Plan taxonomy of 118 research concepts, which were consistent across all 11 panels., Results: Twenty-eight neurotrauma experts generated 675 research questions. Of these, 364 (53.9%) reached consensus, and 56 were determined to be high priority (15.4%), 303 were deemed to be medium priority (83.2%), and 5 were low priority (1.4%). The research topics were stratified into three groups-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), mild TBI (mTBI), and spinal cord injury. The number of high-priority questions for each subtopic was 46 for severe TBI (19.7%), 3 for mTBI (4.3%) and 7 for SCI (11.7%)., Conclusion: This Delphi gap analysis of neurotrauma research identified 56 high-priority research questions. There are clear areas of focus for severe TBI, mTBI, and spinal cord injury that will help guide investigators in future neurotrauma research. Funding agencies should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research., Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 trauma system report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, 11 expert panels completed a Delphi survey process to create a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on prehospital and mass casualty trauma care., Methods: We recruited interdisciplinary national experts to identify gaps in the prehospital and mass casualty trauma evidence base and generate prioritized research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. We included military and civilian representatives. Panelists were encouraged to use the Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome format to generate research questions. We conducted four Delphi rounds in which participants generated key research questions and then prioritized the questions on a 9-point Likert scale to low-, medium-, and high-priority items. We defined consensus as ≥60% agreement on the priority category and coded research questions using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts in 9 categories., Results: Thirty-one interdisciplinary subject matter experts generated 490 research questions, of which 433 (88%) reached consensus on priority. The rankings of the 433 questions were as follows: 81 (19%) high priority, 339 (78%) medium priority, and 13 (3%) low priority. Among the 81 high-priority questions, there were 46 taxonomy concepts, including health systems of care (36 questions), interventional clinical trials and comparative effectiveness (32 questions), mortality as an outcome (30 questions), prehospital time/transport mode/level of responder (24 questions), system benchmarks (17 questions), and fluid/blood product resuscitation (17 questions)., Conclusion: This Delphi gap analysis of prehospital and mass casualty care identified 81 high-priority research questions to guide investigators and funding agencies for future trauma research., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Gait Profile Score (GPS) provides a composite measure of the quality of joint movement during walking, but the relationship between this measure and metabolic cost, temporal (e.g. walking speed) and spatial (e.g. stride length) parameters in stroke survivors has not been reported., Research Question: The aims of this study were to compare the GPS (paretic, non-paretic, and overall score) of young stroke survivors to the healthy able-bodied control and determine the relationship between the GPS and metabolic cost, temporal (walking speed, stance time asymmetry) and spatial (stride length, stride width, step length asymmetry) parameters in young stroke survivors to understand whether the quality of walking affects walking performance in stroke survivors., Methods: Thirty-nine young stroke survivors aged between 18 and 65years and 15 healthy age-matched able-bodied controls were recruited from six hospital sites in Wales, UK. Joint range of motion at the pelvis, hip, knee and ankle, and temporal and spatial parameters were measured during walking on level ground at self-selected speed with calculation of the Gait Variable Score and then the GPS., Results: GPS for the paretic leg (9.40° (8.60-10.21) p < 0.001), non-paretic leg (11.42° (10.20-12.63) p < 0.001) and overall score (11.18° (10.26-12.09) p < 0.001)) for stroke survivors were significantly higher than the control (4.25° (3.40-5.10), 5.92° (5.11 (6.73)). All parameters with the exception of step length symmetry ratio correlated moderate to highly with the GPS for the paretic, non-paretic, and/or overall score (ρ = <-0.732 (p < 0.001))., Significance: The quality of joint movement during walking measured via the GPS is directly related to the speed and efficiency of walking, temporal (stance time symmetry) and spatial (stride length, stride width) parameters in young stroke survivors., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine call for a national integrated, military-civilian trauma action plan to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan to "strengthen trauma research and ensure that the resources available for this research are commensurate with the importance of injury and the potential for improvement in patient outcomes." The Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma/burn care from prehospital to rehabilitation. The Burn/Reconstructive Surgery group represents one focus area for this research agenda development., Methods: Experts in burn and reconstructive surgery research identified gaps in knowledge, generated research questions and prioritized questions using a consensus driven Delphi survey approach. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with military and civilian representatives. Literature reviews informed the panel. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome. Participants ranked the priority of each question on a nine-point Likert scale, which was categorized to represent low, medium, and high priority items. Consensus was defined based on ≥60% panelist agreement., Results: Subject matter experts generated 949 research questions in 29 Burn & 26 Reconstruction topics. Five hundred ninety-seven questions reached consensus. Of these, 338 (57%) were high-priority, 180 (30%), medium-priority, and 78 (13%) low-priority questions., Conclusion: Many high-priority questions translate to complex wound management and outcomes. Panel recognition that significant gaps in knowledge exist in understanding functional outcomes after injury underscores the importance of long-term recovery metrics even when studying acute injury or interventions such as resuscitation or inhalation injury. Funding agencies and burn/reconstructive surgery researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research., Level of Evidence: Expert consensus, Level IV., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Summary Background/objective: To describe the current literature regarding long-term physical, mental, and social outcomes of firearm injury survivors in the United States., Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles published from 2013 to 2019 that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 or older and reported health outcomes between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Out of 747 articles identified, seven reported outcomes on United States-based civilian patients whose mechanism of injury involved firearms. We extended our publication date criteria from 1995 to 2020 and expanded the search strategy to include medical subject headings terms specific for firearm injury outcomes. Ultimately, ten articles met inclusion criteria., Results: When studied, a significant proportion of patients surviving firearm injury screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (49%-60%) or were readmitted (13%-26%) within 6 months postinjury. Most studies reported worse long-term outcomes for firearm injury survivors when compared both to similarly injured motor vehicle collision survivors and to the United States general population, including increased chronic pain, new functional limitations, and reduced physical health composite scores. Studies also reported high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder, reduced mental health composite scores, lower employment and return to work rates, poor social functioning, increased alcohol, and substance abuse., Conclusions: Research on the long-term health impact of firearm injury is scant, and heterogeneity in available studies limits the ability to fully characterize the outcomes among these patients. A better understanding of the long-term health impact of firearm injury would support systematic change in policy and patient care to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine psychometric properties of the PROMIS-10 and Standard Stroke Question Set (by International Consortium for Health Outcome Measures) presented as a new 15-item Patient Related Outcome (PRO), for patients with: acquired Brain Injury (ABI), Multiple sclerosis (MS) and Parkinson's disease (PD)., Methods: In an eight centre, UK wide, cross-sectional study we approached patients during their routine follow-up to complete: a disease-specific instrument (European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, and Parkinson's disease questionnaire); General Health questionnaire with a Quality of life measure (EQ-5D); and PRO. We validated the PRO using factor analysis to define the latent construct domains, then calculated the internal consistency (Cronbach's-α), and construct validity (correlation)., Results: There were 340 patients with ABI (N = 91, median age = 55.1, 41% female), MS (N = 99, age = 58.9, 69%) and PD (N = 150, age = 74.5, 40%). Factor analysis suggested the PRO offered three domains of: physical health; functionality-capacity and mental health. All factors correlated strongly with the three disease-specific instruments, and the overall PRO had a large correlation with the EQ-5D (correlation>0.8) offering good construct validity and excellent internal consistency (∝>0.89)., Interpretation: The PRO offered promising psychometric properties and could be used in place of disease specific questionnaires for patients with ABI, MS, and PD. The PRO has three construct domains, describing patients': mental health; physical health; and functional-capacity, and may be used in routine clinical practice. The PRO offered both relevance to each of the three separate neurological conditions and generalisability across all the conditions, increasing its utility., Competing Interests: None of the authors have any conflicts of interest (BC, CH, AS, AP, MS, OP, SV, JH).

Anticoagulants prevent thrombosis and death in patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism (VTE) but also increase bleeding risk. The benefit/risk ratio favors anticoagulation in most of these patients. However, some will have a bleeding complication, such as the common trip-and-fall brain injury in elderly patients that results in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. Clinicians must then make the difficult decision about when to restart the anticoagulant. Restarting too early risks making the bleeding worse. Restarting too late risks thrombotic events such as ischemic stroke and VTE, the indications for anticoagulation in the first place. There are more data on restarting patients with spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage, which is very different than traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. Spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage increases the risk of rebleeding because intrinsic vascular changes are widespread and irreversible. In contrast, traumatic cases are caused by a blow to the head, usually an isolated event portending less future risk. Clinicians generally agree that anticoagulation should be restarted but disagree about when. This uncertainty leads to long restart delays causing a large, potentially preventable burden of strokes and VTE, which has been unaddressed because of the absence of high quality evidence. Restart Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage (the "r" distinguished intracranial from intracerebral) (TICrH) is a prospective randomized open label blinded end-point response-adaptive clinical trial that will evaluate the impact of delays to restarting direct oral anticoagulation (1, 2, or 4 weeks) on the composite of thrombotic events and bleeding in patients presenting after traumatic intracranial hemorrhage.

Background: The aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are being used to track long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after injury and can potentially be included in trauma registries., Methods: Online databases were used to identify studies published between 2013 and 2019, from which we selected 747 articles that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 years or older at time of injury and used PROMs to evaluate recovery between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results., Results: Most studies were observational, with relatively small sample sizes, and predominantly on traumatic brain injury or orthopedic patients. The number of PROs assessed per study varied from one to 12, for a total of 2052 PROs extracted, yielding 74 unique constructs (physical health, 25 [34%]; mental health, 27 [37%]; social health, 12 [16%]; cognitive health, 7 [10%]; and quality of life, 3 [4%]). These 74 constructs were assessed using 355 different PROMs. Mental health was the most frequently examined outcome domain followed by physical health. Health-related quality of life, which appeared in more than half of the studies (n = 401), was the most common PRO evaluated, followed by depressive symptoms. Physical health was the domain with the highest number of PROMs used (n = 157), and lower-extremity functionality was the PRO that contributed most PROMs (n = 33)., Conclusion: We identified a wide variety of PROMs available to track long-term PROs after injury in five different health domains: physical, mental, social, cognitive, and quality of life. However, efforts to fully understand the health outcomes of trauma patients remain inconsistent and insufficient. Defining PROs that should be prioritized and standardizing the PROMs to measure them will facilitate the incorporation of long-term outcomes in national registries to improve research and quality of care., Level of Evidence: Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses, Level IV., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Anticoagulant-associated traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICrH) is a devastating injury with high morbidity and mortality. For survivors, treating clinicians face the dilemma of restarting oral anticoagulation with scarce evidence to guide them. Thromboembolic risk is high from the bleeding event, patients' high baseline risks, that is, the pre-existing indication for anticoagulation, and the risk of immobility after the bleeding episode. This must be balanced with potentially devastating hematoma expansion or new hemorrhagic lesions. Retrospective evidence and expert opinion support restarting oral anticoagulants in most patients with tICrH, but timing is uncertain. Researchers have failed to make clear distinctions between tICrH and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (sICrH), which have differing natural histories. While both appear to benefit from restarting, sICrH has a higher rebleeding risk and similar or lower thrombotic risk. Clinical equipoise on restarting is also divergent. In sICrH, equipoise is centered on whether to restart. In tICrH, it is centered on when. Several prospective randomized clinical trials are ongoing or about to start to examine the risk-benefit of restarting. Most of them are restricted to patients with sICrH, with antiplatelet control groups. Most are also restricted to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as they are associated with a lower overall risk of ICrH. There is some overlap with tICrH via subdural hematoma, and one trial is specific to restart timing with DOACs in only traumatic cases. This is a narrative review of the current evidence for restarting anticoagulation and restart timing after tICrH along with a summary of the ongoing and planned clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Although most point sources of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are at lower latitudes, the Arctic region is contaminated. In particular, PAHs now dominate the POP body burden of the region's marine biota at the lower trophic levels. Greenlandic Inuits have the most elevated levels of POPs in their blood compared to any other population, due to their consumption of seal meat and other marine mammals. PAHs, the by-products of the incomplete combustion of petroleum products, are known carcinogens and have been shown to affect the immune system, reproduction, endocrine functions, and the nervous system. With industrial activities and climate change set to increase local PAH emissions, it is paramount to document changes in atmospheric PAH deposition to further investigate PAH exposure in the region and attribute contaminations to their sources. As a measure of atmospheric pollution, we sampled bryophyte herbarium specimens of three common and widespread species collected in Greenland between the 1920s and 1970s after which time new collections were not available. They were analyzed for 19 PAHs using GC-MS (gas chromatography mass spectrometry). The presence of more low-molecular-weight PAHs than high-molecular-weight PAHs is evidence that the PAH contamination in Greenland is due to long-range transport rather than originating from local sources. The results show peaks in PAH atmospheric deposition in the first part of the 19th century followed by a trend of decrease, which mirror global trends in atmospheric pollution known from those periods. PAHs associated with wood and fossil-fuel combustion decrease in the 1970s coinciding with the disappearance of charcoal pits and foundries in Europe and North America, and a shift away from domestic heating with wood during the 19 th century. The results highlight the value of bryophytes as bioindicators to measure PAH atmospheric pollution as well as the unrealized potential of herbaria as historical records of environmental change., (Copyright © 2020 Martinez-Swatson, Mihály, Lange, Ernst, Dela Cruz, Price, Mikkelsen, Christensen, Lundholm and Rønsted.)

Background: A significant proportion of patients who survive traumatic injury continue to suffer impaired functional status and increased mortality long after discharge. However, despite the need to improve long-term outcomes, trauma registries in the USA do not collect data on outcomes or care processes after discharge. One of the main barriers is the lack of consensus regarding the optimal outcome metrics., Objectives: To describe the methodology of a scoping review evaluating current evidence on the available measures for tracking functional and patient-reported outcomes after injury. The aim of the review was to identify and summarize measures that are being used to track long-term functional recovery and patient-reported outcomes among adults after injury., Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase will be performed using the search terms for the population (adult trauma patients), type of outcomes (long-term physical, mental, cognitive, and quality of life), and measures available to track them. Studies identified will be reviewed and assessed for relevance by at least two reviewers. Data will be extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. This protocol is being reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines., Dissemination: This scoping review will provide information regarding the currently available metrics for tracking functional and patient-reported outcomes after injury. The review will be presented to a multi-disciplinary stakeholder group that will evaluate these outcome metrics using an online Delphi approach to achieve consensus as part of the development of the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP). The results of this review will be presented at relevant national surgical conferences and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This paper describes the current funding, infrastructure growth and future state of trauma research. It also introduces a group of review articles generated from The Future of Trauma Research: Innovations in Research Methodology conference hosted by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma in July 2019., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: To determine if variables of the pupillary light response mature with age and sex in a healthy pediatric cohort and the utility of pupillometry in assessment among pediatric participants., Methods: After 1 min in a dark room to establish baseline, pupillometry was performed on 323 healthy, pediatric participants (646 eyes; 2-21 years; 175 females). Variables included initial pupil diameter, pupil diameter after light stimulus, percent pupillary constriction, latency to onset of constriction, average constriction velocity, maximum constriction velocity, average dilation velocity, and time from light stimulus to 75% of the initial pupil diameter. Data analyses employed ANOVAs and non-linear regressions., Results: Analyses of age group differences revealed that participants 12-21 years old had a larger initial pupil diameter and pupil diameter after light stimulus, with males aged 12-18 years demonstrating a larger pupil diameter than all younger participants (ps < 0.05). Participants 12-18 years old had a slower maximum constriction velocity than participants 6-11 years old, with no sex differences (ps < 0.05). Furthermore, males aged 12-18 years old had a smaller percent constriction than males 6-11 years old (ps < 0.05). Regressions revealed that percent constriction and dilation velocity seemed to mature linearly, initial pupil diameter and ending pupil diameter matured quadratically, and the constriction velocity terms matured cubically., Conclusions: Results revealed maturation of the pupillary light response by age and sex in healthy pediatric participants. Given the value of the pupillary light response as a biomarker, the results provide normative benchmarks for comparison in health and disease, including opiate-exposed and concussion patients.

Background and Purpose- A quarter of individuals who experience a stroke are under the age of 65 years (defined as young adults), and up to 44% will be unable to return to work poststroke, predominantly because of walking difficulties. No research study has comprehensively analyzed walking performance in young adult's poststroke. The primary aim of this study is to investigate how a stroke in young adults affects walking performance (eg, walking speed and metabolic cost) compared with healthy age-matched controls. The secondary aim is to determine the predictive ability of walking performance parameters for return to employment poststroke. Methods- Forty-six individuals (18-40 years: n=6, 41-54 years: n=21, 55-65 years: n=19) who have had a stroke and 15 healthy age-matched able-bodied controls were recruited from 6 hospital sites in Wales, United Kingdom. Type, location, cause of stroke, and demographic factors (eg, employment status) were recorded. Temporal and spatial walking parameters were measured using 3-dimensional gait analysis. Metabolic energy expenditure and metabolic cost of walking were captured during 3 minutes of walking at self-selected speed from measurements of oxygen consumption. Results- Stroke participants walked slower ( P <0.004) and less efficiently ( P <0.002) than the controls. Only 23% of stroke participants returned to employment poststroke. Walking speed was the strongest predictor (sensitivity, 0.90; specificity, 0.82) for return to work ( P =0.004) with a threshold of 0.93 m/s identified: individuals able to walk faster than 0.93 m/s were significantly more likely to return to work poststroke than those who walked slower than this threshold. Conclusions- This study is the first to capture walking performance parameters of young adults who have had a stroke and identifies slower and less efficient walking. Walking speed emerged as the strongest predictor for return to employment. It is recommended that walking speed be used as a simple but sensitive clinical indicator of functional performance to guide rehabilitation and inform readiness for return to work poststroke.

Background: Recovery following a stroke is a long and ongoing process. Post-stroke follow-up after leaving the hospital is recommended. Methods for follow-up patients include face-to-face, via the telephone, post or online (internet). However, there is a debate which method is preferred by patients. This study aimed to determine whether telephone interview, online questionnaire and postal questionnaire were as acceptable as face-to-face follow-up., Methods: In a blinded, UK-wide, multi-centre, Zelen's designed, 4-arm (postal, online, telephone, compared to face-to-face), pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of the mode of administration, stroke survivors were randomised to postal, online, telephone and face-to-face assessment, in an equal ratio (1:1:1:1). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that responded to the three allocation groups, compared to the face-to-face group. Subgroup analyses for age, aphasia and type and severity of stroke were carried out. A non-inferiority margin of 0.025 was used, and Holm-Bonferroni multiplicity adjustment was made., Results: Of the 2074 eligible patients randomised, 55% were male (1142/2074), with an average age of 73.0 years old (SD = 13.2). Of those randomised, 22% (116/525), 9% (47/515) and 20% (101/513) responded in postal, online and telephone, respectively, compared to 17% (89/521) in the face-to-face group. The reduction in the online response rate compared to face-to-face was found to be both inferior and not non-inferior and estimated as an 8% reduction (95% CI 3.9 to 12.0%; p < 0.001). The association with lower online completion was present regardless of age, stroke type (haemorrhage or infarct) and stroke severity. In haemorrhagic stroke, the reduction in response online, compared to face-to-face, was 21% (95% CI 10 to 32%; p value = 0.002). A secondary analysis found non-aphasic stroke survivors preferred postal completion adjusted odds ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.95; p = 0.026)., Conclusions: The study found that fewer stroke survivors completed follow-up assessment using an online method, compared to face-to-face. This finding was present in all age groups. Caution should be employed when considering online follow-up methods in stroke survivors, particularly in those who have experienced a cerebrovascular haemorrhage., Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03177161 . Registered on 6 June 2017.

The detailed study of prehospital injury death is critical to advancing trauma and emergency care, as circumstance and causality have significant implications for the development of mitigation strategies. Though there is no true 'Golden Hour,' the time from injury to care is a critical element in the analysis matrix, particularly in patients with severe injury. Currently, there is no standard method for the assessment of time to definitive care after injury among prehospital deaths. This article describes a methodology to estimate total prehospital time and distance for trauma patients transported via ground emergency medical services and helicopter emergency medical services using a geographic information system. Data generated using this method, along with medical examiner and field investigation reports, will be used to estimate the potential survivability of prehospital trauma deaths occurring in five US states and the District of Columbia as part of the Multi-Institutional Multidisciplinary Injury Mortality Investigation in the Civilian Pre-Hospital Environment study. One goal of this work is to develop standard metrics for the assessment of total prehospital time and distance, which can be used in the future for more complex spatial analyses to gain a deeper understanding of trauma center access. Results will be used to identify high priority areas for research and development in injury prevention, trauma system performance improvement, and public health., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

There has been major progress over the last two decades in digitising historical knowledge of biodiversity and in making biodiversity data freely and openly accessible. Interlocking efforts bring together international partnerships and networks, national, regional and institutional projects and investments and countless individual contributors, spanning diverse biological and environmental research domains, government agencies and non-governmental organisations, citizen science and commercial enterprise. However, current efforts remain inefficient and inadequate to address the global need for accurate data on the world's species and on changing patterns and trends in biodiversity. Significant challenges include imbalances in regional engagement in biodiversity informatics activity, uneven progress in data mobilisation and sharing, the lack of stable persistent identifiers for data records, redundant and incompatible processes for cleaning and interpreting data and the absence of functional mechanisms for knowledgeable experts to curate and improve data. Recognising the need for greater alignment between efforts at all scales, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) convened the second Global Biodiversity Informatics Conference (GBIC2) in July 2018 to propose a coordination mechanism for developing shared roadmaps for biodiversity informatics. GBIC2 attendees reached consensus on the need for a global alliance for biodiversity knowledge, learning from examples such as the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) and the open software communities under the Apache Software Foundation. These initiatives provide models for multiple stakeholders with decentralised funding and independent governance to combine resources and develop sustainable solutions that address common needs. This paper summarises the GBIC2 discussions and presents a set of 23 complementary ambitions to be addressed by the global community in the context of the proposed alliance. The authors call on all who are responsible for describing and monitoring natural systems, all who depend on biodiversity data for research, policy or sustainable environmental management and all who are involved in developing biodiversity informatics solutions to register interest at https://biodiversityinformatics.org/ and to participate in the next steps to establishing a collaborative alliance. The supplementary materials include brochures in a number of languages (English, Arabic, Spanish, Basque, French, Japanese, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian, Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese). These summarise the need for an alliance for biodiversity knowledge and call for collaboration in its establishment.

WormBase is an open-access model-organism database that provides current and accurate genetic information of C. elegans and related nematodes. Users can search WormBase by several fields, including a gene or human disease. A special feature of the database is the inclusion of micropublications, peer-reviewed data that may go unpublished in traditional venues.

Background: UK-wide national clinical guidelines promote routine 6-month post-stroke follow-up assessment. However, as part of this 6-month assessment little information is gathered from the patient's perspective. The means of collecting this patient-centred information might be served best by a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at the 6-month assessment time point. Currently, four different methods of 6-month follow-up assessment occur; the most common being face-to-face interview followed by telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire. Therefore, this study will investigate if the acceptability of telephone, online or postal administration of a PROM at the 6-month post-stoke time point is not inferior to face-to-face administration., Methods/design: A UK multicentre, blinded (analyst and researcher), pragmatic, non-inferiority study, with 80% power using a 2.5% non-inferiority margin was designed to compare the acceptability of three modes of administration (telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire) compared with face-to-face interview administration of a PROM. We plan to approach and randomise a minimum of 808 potentially eligible participants, 202 participants per group., Discussion: The aim of this ongoing research is to understand if there is a difference between face-to-face administration and the other three methods of administering a PROM as a patient-centred supplement to the 6-month review for stroke survivors. In utilising a pragmatic design, it is believed that this study will offer UK wide generalisable results, of the acceptability of the methods under investigation, to inform clinicians and commissioners of stroke services., Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03177161 . Registered on 6 June 2017.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are events resulting in more injured patients than hospital systems can handle with standard protocols. Several studies have assessed hospital preparedness during MCIs. However, physicians and trauma surgeons need to be familiar with their hospital's MCI Plan. The purpose of this survey was to assess hospitals' and trauma surgeon's preparedness for MCIs. Online surveys were e-mailed to members of the American College of Surgeons committee on Trauma Ad Hoc Committee on Disaster and Mass Casualty Management before the March 2012 meeting. Eighty surveys were analyzed (of 258). About 76 per cent were American College of Surgeons Level I trauma centers, 18 per cent were Level II trauma centers. Fifty-seven per cent of Level I and 21 per cent of Level II trauma centers had experienced an MCI. A total of 98 per cent of respondents thought it was likely their hospital would see a future MCI. Severe weather storm was the most likely event (95%), followed by public transportation incident (86%), then explosion (85%). About 83 per cent of hospitals had mechanisms to request additional physician/surgeons, and 80 per cent reported plans for operative triage. The majority of trauma surgeons felt prepared for an MCI and believed an event was likely to occur in the future. The survey was limited by the highly select group of respondents and future surveys will be necessary.

Background: To increase trauma-related research and elevate trauma on the national research agenda, the National Trauma Institute (NTI) issued calls for proposals, selected funding recipients, and coordinated 16 federally funded (Department of Defense) trauma research awards over a 4-year period. We sought to collect and describe the lessons learned from this activity to inform future researchers of barriers and facilitators., Methods: Fifteen principal investigators participated in semistructured interviews focused on study management issues such as securing institutional approvals, screening and enrollment, multisite trials management, project funding, staffing, and institutional support. NTI Science Committee meeting minutes and study management data were included in the analysis. Simple descriptive statistics were generated and textual data were analyzed for common themes., Results: Principal investigators reported challenges in obtaining institutional approvals, delays in study initiation, screening and enrollment, multisite management, and study funding. Most were able to successfully resolve challenges and have been productive in terms of scholarly publications, securing additional research funding, and training future trauma investigators., Conclusion: Lessons learned in the conduct of the first two funding rounds managed by NTI are instructive in four key areas: regulatory processes, multisite coordination, adequate funding, and the importance of an established research infrastructure to ensure study success. Recommendations for addressing institution-related and investigator-related challenges are discussed along with ongoing advocacy efforts to secure sustained federal funding of a national trauma research program commensurate with the burden of injury.

Despite being the leading cause of death in the United States for individuals 46 years and younger and the primary cause of death among military service members, trauma care research has been underfunded for the last 50 years. Sustained federal funding for a coordinated national trauma clinical research program is required to advance the science of caring for the injured. The Department of Defense is committed to funding studies with military relevance; therefore, it cannot fund pediatric or geriatric trauma clinical trials. Currently, trauma clinical trials are often performed within a single site or a small group of trauma hospitals, and research data are not available for secondary analysis or sharing across studies. Data-sharing platforms encourage transfer of research data and knowledge between civilian and military researchers, reduce redundancy, and maximize limited research funding. In collaboration with the Department of Defense, trauma researchers formed the Coalition for National Trauma Research (CNTR) in 2014 to advance trauma research in a coordinated effort. CNTR's member organizations are the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS COT), the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST), the Western Trauma Association (WTA), and the National Trauma Institute (NTI). CNTR advocates for sustained federal funding for a multidisciplinary national trauma research program to be conducted through a large clinical trials network and a national trauma research repository. The initial advocacy and research activities underway to accomplish these goals are presented.

Background: Intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) commonly presents with seizures in the acute period, and some people may develop recurrent seizures in the long term. The prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for the management of post-ICVT seizures is controversial, and there is currently no consensus on the optimal management of post-ICVT seizures. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review first published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3., Objectives: To assess the effects of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures related to ICVT.(1) For the question of primary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in people who have had an ICVT but have not had a seizure.(2) For the question of secondary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in people who have had an ICVT and at least one seizure., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 onwards) to 20 April 2015, and we checked the reference lists of articles retrieved from the searches., Selection Criteria: We planned to include all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which participants with a diagnosis of ICVT were assigned to a treatment group (that is, receiving at least one AED) or control group (receiving placebo or no drug)., Data Collection and Analysis: Both review authors independently screened and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. If studies had been included in the review, one review author would have extracted the data and another would have checked the extracted data., Main Results: No relevant studies were found., Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures related to intracranial venous thrombosis. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to inform practice. Since the last version of this review no new studies have been found.

Background: Intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) commonly presents with seizures in the acute period, and some people may develop recurrent seizures in the long term. The prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for the management of post-ICVT seizures is controversial, and there is currently no consensus on the optimal management of post-ICVT seizures. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 3., Objectives: To assess the effects of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures related to ICVT.(1) For the question of primary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in people who have had an ICVT but have not had a seizure.(2) For the question of secondary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in people who have had an ICVT and at least one seizure., Search Methods: We aimed to identify relevant studies in the Cochrane Epilepsy Group and Cochrane Stroke Group Specialised Registers. We also undertook specialised searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7) and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 22 August 2013) and checked the reference lists of articles retrieved from the searches., Selection Criteria: We considered all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which participants were assigned to a treatment group (that is, receiving at least one AED) or control group (receiving placebo or no drug)., Data Collection and Analysis: Both review authors independently screened and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. If studies had been included in the review, then one review author would have extracted the data and the other would have checked the extracted data., Main Results: No relevant studies were found., Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures related to intracranial venous thrombosis. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to inform practice. Since the last version of this review no new studies have been found.