The Efficacy of Advanced Life Support: A Review of the Literature

1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Bissell ◽  
Dawn Gyory Eslinger ◽  
Lynn Zimmerman

AbstractIntroduction:Jurisdictions throughout the United States and some other parts of the world have invested substantial time and resources into creating and sustaining a prehospital advanced life support (ALS) system without knowing whether the efficacy of ALS-level care had been validated scientifically. In recent years, it has become fashionable for speakers before large audiences to declare that there is no scientific evidence for the clinical effectiveness of ALS-level care in the out-of-hospital setting. This study was undertaken to evaluate the evidence that pertains to the efficacy of ALS-level care in the current scientific literature.Methods:An extensive review of the available literature was accomplished using computerized and manual means to identify all applicable articles from 1966 to October, 1995. Selected articles were read, abstracted, analyzed, and compiled Each article also was categorized as presenting evidence supporting or refuting the clinical efficacy of ALS-level care, and a list was constructed that pointed to where the preponderance of the evidence lies.Results:Research in this field differs widely in terms of methodological sophistication. Of the 51 articles reviewed, eight concluded that ALS-level care is not any more effective than is basic life support, seven concluded that it is effective in some applications but not for others, and the remainder demonstrated effectiveness. The strongest support for ALS-level care was in the area of responses to victims of cardiac arrest, whereas somewhat more divergent findings related to trauma or non condition-specific studies.Conclusion:While not unanimous, the predominant finding of recent research into the clinical effectiveness of advanced life support demonstrates improved effectiveness over basic life support for patients with certain pathologies. More outcomes-based research is needed.

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-12
Author(s):  
Diana V. Rey-Rodriguez ◽  
José Moreno-Montoya ◽  
Cristina Álvarez-Peregrina

In recent years, prevalence of myopia in the world has increased significantly. The aim of this research work is to consider the combined prevalence of myopia in America, according to the following categories: age, race, gender, and region. Such research will be done also in harmony with the reports found in scientific literature. A systematic review of the literature found in the following databases was carried out: medline, embase, and lilacs. The aim was searching cross-sectional studies containing myopia prevalence information. To find the combined prevalence, the double arc sine method of fixed or random effects by Freeman-Tukey was used. 15 research studies that included 45.349 individuals from the United States, Brazil, and Paraguay, were identified in the literature; studies of subjects aged 0-96 years old. The prevalence of myopia varied from 1,2% to 48% with differences between male and female of 18,4% [95% CI: 13,9-22,8] and 19,8% [95% CI: 18,9-20,7], respectively. The global prevalence of myopia in rural areas was 1,4% [95% CI: 1,3-1,5], and in urban areas 14,3% [95% CI: 13,3-15,2]. At the same time, some differences were identified based on race. In the case of the white race 15,4% [95% CI: 14,4-16,3], Afrodescendants 20,6% [95% CI: 19,6-21,5] and other races (Spanish, non-Spanish, and African American) 2,9% [95% CI: 1,97-3,82]. The lowest figures of myopia prevalence were identified in rural areas in pre-school children (14,1%). There is, probably, a relationship in use and exposure time to electronic items such as screens, in contrast with the development of other indoor activities as outdoor exposure as an environmental factor to slow myopia.


Resuscitation ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 82 (9) ◽  
pp. 1130-1137 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Bakalos ◽  
M. Mamali ◽  
C. Komninos ◽  
E. Koukou ◽  
A. Tsantilas ◽  
...  

Resuscitation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 95 ◽  
pp. e147-e168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian K. Maconochie ◽  
Allan R. de Caen ◽  
Richard Aickin ◽  
Dianne L. Atkins ◽  
Dominique Biarent ◽  
...  

Resuscitation ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. S30 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Bakalos ◽  
Christos Komninos ◽  
Apostolis Tsantilas ◽  
Theophilos Rosenberg

Author(s):  
A. O. Volosovets ◽  
B. I. Slonetsky ◽  
I. S. Zozulya ◽  
A. I. Zozulya ◽  
V. I. Bobrova

Мета роботи – оптимізувати викладання та розподіл алгоритмів виконання практичних навичок лікарями медицини невідкладних станів на догоспітальному та ранньому госпітальному етапах згідно з сучасними стандартами надання невідкладної медичної допомоги. Основна частина. Для реалізації та адекватного інструментального забезпечення демонстрації та наступного відпрацювання практичних навичок на кафедрі наявні спеціалізовані манекени та обладнання, які дозволяють у повному об’ємі виконувати всі маніпуляції, передбачені алгоритмами надання невідкладної медичної допомоги. Важливим аспектом, завдяки якому кафедра наслідує сучасним міжнародним стандартам надання допомоги, є розподіл викладання практичних навичок надання невідкладної допомоги з урахуванням загальноприйнятих в усьому світі понять BLS (basic life support) та ALS (advanced life support). Висновок. Оптимізація методики викладання практичних навичок для надання невідкладної медичної допомоги відповідно до сучасних стандартів лікування невідкладних станів збільшує якість надання допомоги та дозволяє зменшити втрати часу на догоспітальному етапі, що здатне значною мірою підвищити виживання та відсоток позитивного прогнозу для пацієнтів з невідкладною медичною патологією.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. e2021051508
Author(s):  
John Lyng ◽  
Kathleen Adelgais ◽  
Rachael Alter ◽  
Justin Beal ◽  
Bruce Chung ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document