Abstract：
A key component in the classification of all injury types is to differentiate whether the injury was deliberately inflicted and by whom, commonly known as \"intent\" in the surveillance literature. These data guide patient care and inform surveillance strategies. South Asia is believed to have the greatest number of intentional burn injuries, but national surveillance data is not disaggregated by injury intent. Scientific literature can be used for injury surveillance where national data collection does not exist. In order to synthesise research findings, it is essential to assess the potential impact of misclassification bias. We therefore conducted a systematic scoping review to understand terminology and methods used to differentiate injury intent of hospital burn patients in South Asia.
We followed the methods in our registered protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DCYNQ). Studies met defined population, concept, context, and study design criteria. The databases Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and PakMediNet were searched. Two reviewers independently screened results. Data were extracted in a standardised manner and verified. The rigour of the method used to differentiate injury intent was appraised.
1435 articles were screened. Of these, 89 met our inclusion criteria. Most articles were from India and Pakistan, and used an observational study design. There were 14 stem terms used in the articles. The most common was \"cause\". There were 40 classifier terms. The most common were \"accident\", \"suicide\", and \"homicide\". Few articles defined these terms. The method used to differentiate injury intent was only described explicitly in 17% of articles and the rigour of the methods used were low. Where methods of differentiation were described, they appear to be based on patient or family report rather than multidisciplinary assessment.
The heterogeneity in terms, lack of definitions, and limited investigation of injury intent means this variable is likely to be prone to misclassification bias. We strongly recommend that the global burn community unites to develop a common data element, including definitions and methods of assessment, for the concept of burn injury intent to enable more reliable data collection practices and interstudy comparisons.
We followed the methods in our registered protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DCYNQ). Studies met defined population, concept, context, and study design criteria. The databases Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and PakMediNet were searched. Two reviewers independently screened results. Data were extracted in a standardised manner and verified. The rigour of the method used to differentiate injury intent was appraised.
1435 articles were screened. Of these, 89 met our inclusion criteria. Most articles were from India and Pakistan, and used an observational study design. There were 14 stem terms used in the articles. The most common was \"cause\". There were 40 classifier terms. The most common were \"accident\", \"suicide\", and \"homicide\". Few articles defined these terms. The method used to differentiate injury intent was only described explicitly in 17% of articles and the rigour of the methods used were low. Where methods of differentiation were described, they appear to be based on patient or family report rather than multidisciplinary assessment.
The heterogeneity in terms, lack of definitions, and limited investigation of injury intent means this variable is likely to be prone to misclassification bias. We strongly recommend that the global burn community unites to develop a common data element, including definitions and methods of assessment, for the concept of burn injury intent to enable more reliable data collection practices and interstudy comparisons.
摘要：
背景：所有伤害类型分类的关键组成部分是区分伤害是否是故意造成的以及由谁造成的，在监测文献中通常被称为“意图”。这些数据指导患者护理并告知监测策略。南亚被认为是故意烧伤人数最多的国家，但是国家监测数据没有按伤害意图分类。科学文献可用于不存在国家数据收集的伤害监测。为了综合研究成果，评估错误分类偏差的潜在影响至关重要。因此，我们进行了系统的范围审查，以了解用于区分南亚医院烧伤患者伤害意图的术语和方法。
方法：我们遵循已注册协议（https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF）中的方法。IO/DCYNQ）。研究符合定义的人口，概念,context,并研究设计标准。数据库Embase,MEDLINE,CINAHL,PsycInfo,和PakMediNet进行了搜索。两名审阅者独立筛选结果。以标准化方式提取数据并进行验证。评估了用于区分伤害意图的方法的严格性。
结果：筛选了1435篇文章。其中,89符合我们的纳入标准。大多数文章来自印度和巴基斯坦，并使用观察性研究设计。文章中使用了14个词干术语。最常见的是“原因”。有40个分类器术语。最常见的是“事故”，\"自杀\",和“凶杀”。很少有文章定义这些术语。仅在17％的文章中明确描述了用于区分伤害意图的方法，并且使用的方法的严谨性很低。在描述区分方法的地方，它们似乎是基于患者或家庭报告,而不是多学科评估.
结论：异质性方面，缺乏定义，并且对伤害意图的有限调查意味着该变量很可能容易出现错误分类偏差。我们强烈建议全球燃烧社区联合起来开发一个通用的数据元素，包括定义和评估方法，用于烧伤意图的概念，以实现更可靠的数据收集实践和研究间比较。
方法：我们遵循已注册协议（https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF）中的方法。IO/DCYNQ）。研究符合定义的人口，概念,context,并研究设计标准。数据库Embase,MEDLINE,CINAHL,PsycInfo,和PakMediNet进行了搜索。两名审阅者独立筛选结果。以标准化方式提取数据并进行验证。评估了用于区分伤害意图的方法的严格性。
结果：筛选了1435篇文章。其中,89符合我们的纳入标准。大多数文章来自印度和巴基斯坦，并使用观察性研究设计。文章中使用了14个词干术语。最常见的是“原因”。有40个分类器术语。最常见的是“事故”，\"自杀\",和“凶杀”。很少有文章定义这些术语。仅在17％的文章中明确描述了用于区分伤害意图的方法，并且使用的方法的严谨性很低。在描述区分方法的地方，它们似乎是基于患者或家庭报告,而不是多学科评估.
结论：异质性方面，缺乏定义，并且对伤害意图的有限调查意味着该变量很可能容易出现错误分类偏差。我们强烈建议全球燃烧社区联合起来开发一个通用的数据元素，包括定义和评估方法，用于烧伤意图的概念，以实现更可靠的数据收集实践和研究间比较。
