Weighing the impact of evidence in orthopaedic trauma registries: a systematic review of national and international registry data.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, there are 15 established trauma databases collecting data to better understand the patterns of injury and effectiveness of interventions, but interpreting the information is hampered by the varied approaches. The aim of this study was to determine the impact, practices, evolution in design and methods of analysis that are standardised and comparable within registries. DESIGN: A thematic analysis using a narrative synthesis was used to develop threads for future study and identify the limitations in current practice. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and EMBASE were searched on the 2 October 2025. At the same time, ChatGPT (Open artificial intelligence) identified the most cited articles in orthopaedic trauma registries, cross-referencing lists as a form of triangulation to aid in snowballing references. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The review included 174 papers from trials and observational studies that analyse data from established trauma orthopaedic registries published in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies assessing the papers using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist to assess the observational and cohort studies and the Downs and Black Quality Criteria for the remaining papers. RESULTS: Outcome measures other than mortality are poorly collected, undermining the value of registries. Trauma patients reported considerable impairment 6 and 12 months after injury. Association between level of trauma care and mortality is evident for major trauma populations, but does not hold for general trauma populations. Level I trauma centres produce improved survival in severely injured, but this association could not be proven for non-fatal outcomes in general populations. There is a disparity between resources allocated to save and salvage cases within major trauma units, and hence, routine cases often have lower priority and delayed care. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to develop a standardised and reproducible method to evaluate data quality in trauma registries. National performance guidelines and trauma centre audits are integral steps towards optimum results. Routine collection of postinjury outcome measures beyond mortality will enable the development of quality improvement metrics that better reflect patient outcomes.