A Systematic Review of the Current State of Trauma Clinical Practice Guidelines in the United States: Timeliness, Relevance, Accessibility, Quality, and Equity

Abstract

Background Clinical 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.

Methods A 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.

Results Most 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).

Conclusions Trauma 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.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Protocols

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42021292381

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Comments (0)

No login
gif