From trauma capacity to neurotrauma capacity: A scoping review of existing assessment frameworks.
12 affiliations
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, Verona, Italy.
- 2Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
- 3Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Neurosurgery, University of Verona, Italy.
- 4Department of Neurosurgery, Willemstad, Curaçao.
- 5Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy.
- 6Northwest General Hospital and Research Centre, Peshawar, Pakistan.
- 7School of Neurosurgery, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
- 8Neurosurgery Division, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
- 9Neurosurgery Unit, AUSL RE IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
- 10Meditech Foundation, Cali, Colombia.
- 11Department of Neurosurgery, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia.
- 12Neuroscience Institute, Universidad El Bosque, Bogota, Colombia.
Abstract
Introduction
Neurotrauma, comprising traumatic brain injury (TBI) and traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI), remains a major global health issue, with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bearing a disproportionate burden. Effective neurotrauma care requires timely and coordinated access to prehospital care, imaging, surgery, neurocritical care, and rehabilitation, yet current assessment frameworks often fail to capture these interdependent requirements.Research question
What instruments are currently available to evaluate trauma and neurosurgical capacity across diverse global settings, and to what extent do these tools capture indicators relevant to neurotrauma care?Material and methods
We conducted a scoping review following JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health from inception to March 2026, supplemented by grey literature. We included studies describing instruments assessing system or facility-level capacity for trauma or neurosurgical care. Data extraction and domain mapping were performed independently by two reviewers.Results
Twenty-six documents were included, describing 19 distinct instruments. Instruments were categorized as surgical capacity (n = 4), trauma capacity (n = 4), neurosurgical/neurocritical care capacity (n = 4), and quality indicator sets (n = 7). Emergency and imaging readiness was the most frequently covered domain (89%), followed by quality and audit systems (68%), operative capacity (53%), and neurocritical care (47%). Prehospital referral systems and workforce/training were the least covered domains (37% each). Only two instruments covered all six predefined neurotrauma domains.Discussion and conclusion
Existing tools assess important components of trauma and neurosurgical capacity but remain heterogeneous and fragmented. No identified instrument provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of neurotrauma capacity across the full continuum of care. These findings support the development of an integrated framework combining indicators across the neurotrauma care pathway.
Related
- Decolonising global health evaluations: A scoping review of methodological frameworks
- Review of human health exposure assessment frameworks in the United States and development of a unified framework for exposure assessment practitioners
- Neurovascular coupling in simultaneous EEG-fNIRS studies: A scoping review of analytical frameworks and clinical applications
- Conceptual frameworks of anaemia determinants in adolescent girls and pregnant women: protocol for a scoping review
- Mapping Integrative Decision-Making Frameworks in Advanced Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Diagnostic, Supportive-Care, and Therapeutic Integration.
BibTeX
@article{marchesini2026from,
title = {{From trauma capacity to neurotrauma capacity: A scoping review of existing assessment frameworks.}},
author = {Nicolò Marchesini and Dina Belhaj Youssef and Ellianne Dos Santos Rubio and Edoardo Picetti and Tariq Khan and Corrado Iaccarino and Andrès M Rubiano},
journal = {Brain \& spine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.bas.2026.107474},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42908887},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - From trauma capacity to neurotrauma capacity: A scoping review of existing assessment frameworks.
AU - Nicolò Marchesini
AU - Dina Belhaj Youssef
AU - Ellianne Dos Santos Rubio
AU - Edoardo Picetti
AU - Tariq Khan
AU - Corrado Iaccarino
AU - Andrès M Rubiano
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/12
JO - Brain & spine
DO - 10.1016/j.bas.2026.107474
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42908887
AB - Introduction Neurotrauma, comprising traumatic brain injury (TBI) and traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI), remains a major global health issue, with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bearing a disproportionate burden. Effective neurotrauma care requires timely and coordinated access to prehospital care, imaging, surgery, neurocritical care, and rehabilitation, yet current assessment frameworks often fail to capture these interdependent requirements.Research question What instruments are currently available to evaluate trauma and neurosurgical capacity across diverse global settings, and to what extent do these tools capture indicators relevant to neurotrauma care?Material and methods We conducted a scoping review following JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health from inception to March 2026, supplemented by grey literature. We included studies describing instruments assessing system or facility-level capacity for trauma or neurosurgical care. Data extraction and domain mapping were performed independently by two reviewers.Results Twenty-six documents were included, describing 19 distinct instruments. Instruments were categorized as surgical capacity (n = 4), trauma capacity (n = 4), neurosurgical/neurocritical care capacity (n = 4), and quality indicator sets (n = 7). Emergency and imaging readiness was the most frequently covered domain (89%), followed by quality and audit systems (68%), operative capacity (53%), and neurocritical care (47%). Prehospital referral systems and workforce/training were the least covered domains (37% each). Only two instruments covered all six predefined neurotrauma domains.Discussion and conclusion Existing tools assess important components of trauma and neurosurgical capacity but remain heterogeneous and fragmented. No identified instrument provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of neurotrauma capacity across the full continuum of care. These findings support the development of an integrated framework combining indicators across the neurotrauma care pathway.
SN - 2772-5294
ER -