|
Abstract
|
We read the article by Singh et al., published in your esteemed journal with great interest.[1] We have certain major concerns and suggestions which we want to highlight.
Firstly, as per the study title "Injury pattern of road traffic accident cases attending trauma center." So, it is not sure why the authors described all causes of trauma instead of focusing only on road traffic accident cases (RTA) cases. Secondly, the methodology mentioned that 100 per day were reported to the trauma center, and the authors took a sample of 410. So, whether the study completed in one week or one month? The sampling technique, as well as the study duration, was not mentioned. A sample size of 410 is very small for a study in a trauma center having 100 footfalls daily.
In the Results section, the injuries described seem to be musculoskeletal only, but other organ injuries frequently seen in RTA cases, such as abdominal injuries and thoracic injuries, are not specified. This is also not per the six anatomical regions defined for trauma patients. The pattern of injuries could have been mentioned as per the abbreviated injury scale based on the anatomical area of involvement.[2] Those with spinal injuries are also not mentioned in the article.[2] There are no data regarding pedestrian injuries, which is indicative of rash driving. The article mentioned that patients with multiple injuries (24.4%) need more clarity. The injury severity score (ISS) was not calculated and mentioned.[3,4] PGI has a level 1 trauma center where chances of survival are higher, so other centers will likely refer the patients. As there was no triaging or ISS calculation, it cannot be said that the patients referred are in the red or green triage category. Patients with ISS >15 (polytrauma) should be sent to a level 1 trauma center for better survival.[4] The authors have not discussed the outcome of trauma patients and their survival. As in the discussion session, the authors stated, "In our study, it was seen that maximum patients coming to ATC were from rural area 76% (313) and 24% (97) from urban areas." So, the author's explanation does not seem logical here without mentioning the injury severity of the referred patients.
Language: en |