scholarly journals Multiple trauma management in mountain environments - a scoping review

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Sumann ◽  
D. Moens ◽  
B. Brink ◽  
M. Brodmann Maeder ◽  
M. Greene ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Trauma ◽  
Trauma Centre ◽  
Urban Environments ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Trauma Management ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Mountain Environments ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Haemorrhage Control

Abstract Background Multiple trauma in mountain environments may be associated with increased morbidity and mortality compared to urban environments. Objective To provide evidence based guidance to assist rescuers in multiple trauma management in mountain environments. Eligibility criteria All articles published on or before September 30th 2019, in all languages, were included. Articles were searched with predefined search terms. Sources of evidence PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and hand searching of relevant studies from the reference list of included articles. Charting methods Evidence was searched according to clinically relevant topics and PICO questions. Results Two-hundred forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations were developed and graded according to the evidence-grading system of the American College of Chest Physicians. The manuscript was initially written and discussed by the coauthors. Then it was presented to ICAR MedCom in draft and again in final form for discussion and internal peer review. Finally, in a face-to-face discussion within ICAR MedCom consensus was reached on October 11th 2019, at the ICAR fall meeting in Zakopane, Poland. Conclusions Multiple trauma management in mountain environments can be demanding. Safety of the rescuers and the victim has priority. A crABCDE approach, with haemorrhage control first, is central, followed by basic first aid, splinting, immobilisation, analgesia, and insulation. Time for on-site medical treatment must be balanced against the need for rapid transfer to a trauma centre and should be as short as possible. Reduced on-scene times may be achieved with helicopter rescue. Advanced diagnostics (e.g. ultrasound) may be used and treatment continued during transport.

scholarly journals Zolpidem for Insomnia: A Double-Edged Sword. A Systematic Literature Review on Zolpidem-Induced Complex Sleep Behaviors

2021 ◽  
pp. 025371762199237
Author(s):  
Niti Mittal ◽  
Rakesh Mittal ◽  
M. C. Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Spontaneous Reports ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Sleep Behaviors ◽  
Therapeutic Doses ◽  
Favorable Side Effect Profile

Background: Being a nonbenzodiazepine, zolpidem is believed to have a favorable side-effect profile and is widely prescribed for insomnia. However, in the past few years, numerous neuropsychiatric adverse reactions, particularly complex sleep behaviors (CSBs), have been reported with zolpidem. Objective: To conduct a systematic review of zolpidem-associated CSBs. Data Sources: An electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews to extract relevant articles till July 2020. Study Eligibility Criteria: Any type of literature article (case report, case series, and observational or interventional study) reporting CSBs associated with zolpidem. Results: In this review, we present aggregate summarized data from 148 patients presenting with zolpidem-induced CSBs (79 patients from 23 case reports and 5 case series; 69 patients out of 1454 taking zolpidem [4.7%] from three observational clinical studies). Various types of CSBs associated with zolpidem were reported, most common being sleepwalking/somnambulism and sleep-related eating disorder. On causality assessment, around 88% of cases were found to have a probable association with zolpidem. Limitations: Extraction of data from observational studies and spontaneous reports, due to nonavailability of any randomized controlled trials relevant to the study objective. Conclusion and Implication of Key Findings: Zolpidem-induced CSBs, although not very common, may develop when the drug is used at therapeutic doses for insomnia. Doctors need to be alert to monitor such adverse effects of zolpidem and exercise caution while prescribing it.

scholarly journals Accuracy of self-referral in health anxiety: comparison of patients self-referring to internet-delivered treatment versus patients clinician-referred to face-to-face treatment

BJPsych Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ditte Hoffmann ◽  
Charlotte Ulrikka Rask ◽  
Erik Hedman-Lagerlöf ◽  
Trine Eilenberg ◽  
Lisbeth Frostholm
Keyword(s):  
Health Anxiety ◽  
Diagnostic Delay ◽  
Accurate Method ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Recruitment Methods ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Symptom Profile ◽  
Mean Differences

Background Severe health anxiety is a chronic and costly disorder if untreated. Patient self-referral may lower barriers to treatment and decrease diagnostic delay. Aims This study evaluated the accuracy of self-referral for severe health anxiety and compared characteristics of patients self-referred to internet-delivered treatment with patients referred by a clinician to face-to-face treatment. Method Two trials in the same clinic employed different referral methods for health anxiety, namely self-referral and clinician-referral (trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01158430 and NCT02735434). The trials were conducted at different time points but with largely comparable eligibility criteria. The accuracy of the recruitment methods was compared by looking at the number of eligible patients in the two trials. Patients completed a baseline questionnaire and subsequently underwent a diagnostic interview by experienced clinicians. Mean differences in self-report and clinical data explored between-group demographic and clinical characteristics. Results In total, 101/151 (67%) self-referred patients were eligible compared with 126/254 (50%) clinician-referred patients (P = 0.001). Self-referred patients were 3.4 years older (P = 0.008) and had a somewhat higher educational level (P = 0.030). Patients who self-referred reported significantly higher levels of health anxiety, emotional distress and somatic symptoms compared with clinician-referred patients. Yet, they had less clinician-assessed comorbid anxiety disorders (P<0.001) and better physical health-related quality of life (P<0.001) suggesting a more distinct symptom profile. Conclusions Self-referral was found to be an accurate method to recruit highly relevant patients with treatment-demanding health anxiety. Thus, both self-referral and clinician-referral seem feasible and valid referral methods, but they may recruit patients with slightly different characteristics. Declaration of interest None.

scholarly journals Panoramic versus CBCT used to reduce inferior alveolar nerve paresthesia after third molar extractions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 20190265
Author(s):  
Nathalia Calzavara Del Lhano ◽  
Rosangela Almeida Ribeiro ◽  
Carolina Castro Martins ◽  
Neuza Maria Souza Picorelli Assis ◽  
Karina Lopes Devito
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Panoramic Radiography ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether CBCT in comparison with panoramic radiography reduced the cases of temporary paresthesias of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) associated with third molar extractions. Methods: The literature search included five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, SciELO), in addition to gray literature and hand search of reference list of included studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, and full texts according to eligibility criteria, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias through Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2.0). Data were meta-analyzed by comparing CBCT versus panoramic radiographs for number of events (temporary paresthesia after third molar surgery). Fixed effect model was used for non-significant heterogeneity; relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in meta-analysis, and for the majority of domains they presented low risk of bias. RR was 1.23 (95% IC: 0.75–2.02; I2: 0%; p = 0.43) favouring panoramic radiography, but without significant effect, and with moderate certainty of evidence. Conclusions: We concluded that both interventions had a similar ability to reduce temporary paresthesia of the IAN after third molar surgery with moderate certainty of evidence.

Real-time telerehabilitation for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions is effective and comparable to standard practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 625-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle A Cottrell ◽  
Olivia A Galea ◽  
Shaun P O’Leary ◽  
Anne J Hill ◽  
Trevor G Russell
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Musculoskeletal Conditions ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Conventional Methods ◽  
Mean Differences

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment delivered via real-time telerehabilitation for the management of musculoskeletal conditions, and to determine if real-time telerehabilitation is comparable to conventional methods of delivery within this population. Data sources: Six databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PEDro, psycINFO, CINAHL) were searched from inception to November 2015 for literature which reported on the outcomes of real-time telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal conditions. Review methods: Two reviewers screened 5913 abstracts where 13 studies ( n = 1520) met the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs & Black ‘Checklist for Measuring Quality’ tool. Results were pooled for meta-analysis based upon primary outcome measures and reported as standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Aggregate results suggest that telerehabilitation is effective in the improvement of physical function (SMD 1.63, 95%CI 0.92-2.33, I2=93%), whilst being slightly more favourable (SMD 0.44, 95%CI 0.19-0.69, I2=58%) than the control cohort following intervention. Sub-group analyses reveals that telerehabilitation in addition to usual care is more favourable (SMD 0.64, 95%CI 0.43-0.85, I2=10%) than usual care alone, whilst treatment delivered solely via telerehabilitation is equivalent to face-to-face intervention (SMD MD 0.14, 95% CI −0.10–0.37, I2 = 0%) for the improvement of physical function. The improvement of pain was also seen to be comparable between cohorts (SMD 0.66, 95%CI −0.27–1.60, I2=96%) following intervention. Conclusions: Real-time telerehabilitation appears to be effective and comparable to conventional methods of healthcare delivery for the improvement of physical function and pain in a variety of musculoskeletal conditions.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of return to activity and return to school protocols for children postconcussion: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol DeMatteo ◽  
E Dimitra Bednar ◽  
Sarah Randall ◽  
Katie Falla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Paediatric Population ◽  
Acute Stage ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Return To School ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
Return To Activity

ObjectiveTo determine the effects of following return to activity (RTA) and return to school (RTS) protocols on clinical outcomes for children with concussion. The 12 subquestions of this review focus on the effectiveness of protocols, guidelines and recommendations, and the evidence supporting content of the protocols including rest, exercise and school accommodations.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC and manual reference list check.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies were included if they evaluated RTA or RTS protocols in children aged 5–18 years with a concussion or if they reported a rigorous study design that provided evidence for the recommendations. Included studies were original research or systematic reviews. Articles were excluded if they did not report on their methodology or included participants with significant neurological comorbidities.ResultsThe literature search retrieved 198 non-duplicate articles and a total of 13 articles were included in this review. Despite the adoption of several RTS and RTA protocols in clinical practice there is little evidence to determine their efficacy in the paediatric population.SummaryThe current data support the recommendation that children in the acute stage postconcussion should undergo 1–2 days physical and cognitive rest as they initiate graduated RTA/RTS protocols. Prolonged rest may increase reported symptoms and time to recovery. Further interventional studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of RTA/RTS protocols in youth with concussion.

PP9 A systematic review and meta-analysis of pre-hospital diagnostic accuracy studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. e4.2-e4
Author(s):  
Caitlin Wilson ◽  
Clare Harley ◽  
Stephanie Steels
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Full Text Review ◽  
Hospital Doctors ◽  
Diagnostic Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

BackgroundPre-hospital clinicians are involved in examining, treating and diagnosing patients. The accuracy of pre-hospital diagnoses is evaluated using diagnostic accuracy studies. We undertook a systematic review of published literature to provide an overview of how accurately pre-hospital clinicians diagnose patients compared to hospital doctors. A bivariate meta-analysis was incorporated to examine the range of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, AMED and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1946 to 7th May 2016 for studies where patients had been given a diagnosis by pre-hospital clinicians and hospital doctors. Key words focused on study type (‘diagnostic accuracy’), outcomes (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio?, predictive value?) and setting (paramedic*, pre-hospital, ambulance, ‘emergency service?’, ‘emergency medical service?’, ‘emergency technician?’). The sole researcher screened titles and abstracts to ensure eligibility criteria were met, as well as assessing methodological quality using QUADAS-2.Results2941 references were screened by title and/or abstract. Eleven studies encompassing 3 84 985 patients were included after full-text review. The types of diagnoses in one of the studies encompassed all possible diagnoses and in the other studies focused on sepsis, stroke and myocardial infarction. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 32%–100% and specificity estimates from 14%–100%. Eight of the studies were deemed to have a low risk of bias and were incorporated into a meta-analysis, which showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.74 (0.62, 0.82) and a pooled specificity of 0.94 (0.87, 0.97).ConclusionsCurrent published research suggests that diagnoses made by pre-hospital clinicians have high sensitivity and even higher specificity. However, the paucity and varying quality of eligible studies indicates that further pre-hospital diagnostic accuracy studies are warranted especially in the field of non-life-threatening conditions and trauma.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017737 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedyeh Ziai ◽  
Rujun Zhang ◽  
An-Wen Chan ◽  
Nav Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Cochrane Database

ObjectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.DesignAudit of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals:Journal of the American Medical Association,The British Medical Journal,Lancet,Annals of Internal Medicineand theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.Main findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.ConclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document