Limits...
What is orthopaedic triage? A systematic review.

Morris JH, James RE, Davey R, Waddington G - J Eval Clin Pract (2014)

Bottom Line: Studies were critically appraised using the McMaster quality appraisal tool and ranked using the National Health and Medical Research Council hierarchy of evidence.The hierarchy of evidence ranged from I to IV; however, the majority were at low levels of evidence and scored poorly on the critical appraisal tool.However, there were significant inconsistencies across these themes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Consort diagram for these review findings reported in this paper.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4359679&req=5

fig01: Consort diagram for these review findings reported in this paper.

Mentions: The search found a total of 1930 studies, which were potentially eligible for this review (see Fig. 1). Of these, 204 were duplicates, 1673 were removed as not relevant through analysis of title and abstract, six more were pearled from reference lists, 14 were excluded on review of full text, resulting in 45 papers relevant for this review.


What is orthopaedic triage? A systematic review.

Morris JH, James RE, Davey R, Waddington G - J Eval Clin Pract (2014)

Consort diagram for these review findings reported in this paper.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4359679&req=5

fig01: Consort diagram for these review findings reported in this paper.
Mentions: The search found a total of 1930 studies, which were potentially eligible for this review (see Fig. 1). Of these, 204 were duplicates, 1673 were removed as not relevant through analysis of title and abstract, six more were pearled from reference lists, 14 were excluded on review of full text, resulting in 45 papers relevant for this review.

Bottom Line: Studies were critically appraised using the McMaster quality appraisal tool and ranked using the National Health and Medical Research Council hierarchy of evidence.The hierarchy of evidence ranged from I to IV; however, the majority were at low levels of evidence and scored poorly on the critical appraisal tool.However, there were significant inconsistencies across these themes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus