scholarly journals First Aid Management of Hypothermia and Cold Injuries

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (s1) ◽  
pp. s132-s132
Author(s):  
Rowena Christiansen
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Key Management ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
First Aid ◽  
Accidental Hypothermia ◽  
Cold Environments ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Management Recommendations

Introduction:Best practice first aid management of accidental hypothermia and cold injuries in the prehospital setting is relevant for disaster management in cold environments as well as for wilderness and expedition medicine, and space medicine. In the Australasian context, guidance is currently taken from the Australian Resuscitation Council (“ARC”) Guidelines dealing with these issues.Aim:To review and update the recommendations of the ARC Guideline 9.3.3 Hypothermia: First-Aid Management (February 2009) and ARC Guideline 9.3.6 Cold Injury (March 2000).Method: The review is being undertaken through a combination of a focused literature review and expert opinion. Through the author’s membership of the International Commission for Alpine Rescue (“ICAR”) Alpine Emergency Medicine Commission, two northern-hemisphere experts on hypothermia have reviewed the guidelines and provided commentary and recommendations.Results:Much of the literature around accidental hypothermia and cold injuries (including frostbite, frostnip, and chilblains), relies on expert opinion and case studies. There are relatively few randomized controlled trials, and these are often confined to the laboratory setting. As a result, there is a heavier reliance on expert opinion than in any other areas of medicine.Discussion:This presentation will summarize the current best practice recommendations for the first aid management of accidental hypothermia and cold injuries through combining the existing ARC Guidelines with key advances identified through the literature review, and the key management recommendations stemming from expert opinion. This will provide attendees with a cohesive set of clinical practice recommendations which can be used in the field.

scholarly journals Best-Practice Recommendations for Producers, Evaluators, and Users of Methodological Literature Reviews

2020 ◽  
pp. 109442812094328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herman Aguinis ◽  
Ravi S. Ramani ◽  
Nawaf Alabduljader
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Methodological Issue ◽  
Applied Psychology ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Literature Reviews

We categorized and content-analyzed 168 methodological literature reviews published in 42 management and applied psychology journals. First, our categorization uncovered that the majority of published reviews (i.e., 85.10%) belong in three categories (i.e., critical, narrative, and descriptive reviews), which points to opportunities and promising directions for additional types of methodological literature reviews in the future (e.g., meta-analytic and umbrella reviews). Second, our content analysis uncovered implicit features of published methodological literature reviews. Based on the results of our content analysis, we created a checklist of actionable recommendations regarding 10 components to include to enhance a methodological literature review’s thoroughness, clarity, and ultimately, usefulness. Third, we describe choices and judgment calls in published reviews and provide detailed explications of exemplars that illustrate how those choices and judgment calls can be made explicit. Overall, our article offers recommendations that are useful for three methodological literature review stakeholder groups: producers (i.e., potential authors), evaluators (i.e., journal editors and reviewers), and users (i.e., substantive researchers interested in learning about a particular methodological issue and individuals tasked with training the next generation of scholars).

scholarly journals The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine M. Z. van Tongeren ◽  
S. Froukje Harkes-Idzinga ◽  
Heleen van der Sijs ◽  
Roya Atiqi ◽  
Bart J. F. van den Bemt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Practice Recommendations

Illuminating the decision-making strategies of anesthesia providers in challenging cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 653-657
Author(s):  
Joshua Biro ◽  
David M. Neyens ◽  
Candace Jaruzel ◽  
Catherine D. Tobin ◽  
Myrtede Alfred ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Work Environment ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Information Seeking ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Medication Delivery ◽  
Anesthesia Providers ◽  
Healthcare Work ◽  
Realistic View

Medication errors and error-related scenarios in anesthesia remain an important area of research. Interventions and best practice recommendations in anesthesia are often based in the work-as-imagined healthcare system, remaining under-used due to a range of unforeseen complexities in healthcare work-as- done. In order to design adaptable anesthesia medication delivery systems, a better understanding of clinical cognition within the context of anesthesia work is needed. Fourteen interviews probing anesthesia providers’ decision making were performed. The results revealed three overarching themes: (1) anesthesia providers find cases challenging when they have incomplete information, (2) decision-making begins with information seeking, and (3) attributes such as expertise, experience, and work environment influence anesthesia providers’ information seeking and synthesis of tasks. These themes and the context within this data help create a more realistic view of work-as-done and generate insights into what potential medication error reducing interventions should look to avoid and what they could help facilitate.

scholarly journals Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Secondary Prevention of Stroke Update 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-69
Author(s):  
David J. Gladstone ◽  
M. Patrice Lindsay ◽  
James Douketis ◽  
Eric E Smith ◽  
Dar Dowlatshahi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Practice Recommendations

Best Practice Recommendations for Optimizing Care in Structural Heart Programs: Planning Efficient and Resource Leveraging Systems (PEARLS)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth M. Perpetua ◽  
Kimberly A. Guibone ◽  
Patricia A. Keegan ◽  
Roseanne Palmer ◽  
Martina K. Speight ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Resource Leveraging

scholarly journals SAT0052 THERAPEUTIC STRATEGIES IN DIFFICULT-TO-TREAT RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW INFORMING THE 2020 EULAR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIFFICULT-TO-TREAT RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 957-957
Author(s):  
N. M. T. Roodenrijs ◽  
A. Hamar ◽  
M. Kedves ◽  
G. Nagy ◽  
J. M. Van Laar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Therapeutic Strategies ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Fatigue Exercise ◽  
Factor Inhibitor ◽  
Management Recommendations ◽  
Sat 1

Background:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated according to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations failing ≥2 biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) with a different mode of action who still have complaints which may be suggestive of active disease may be defined as suffering from ‘difficult-to-treat RA’. Management recommendations for RA focus predominantly on the earlier phases of the disease and specific recommendations for difficult-to-treat RA patients are currently lacking.1Objectives:To systematically summarise evidence in the literature on pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies for difficult-to-treat RA patients, informing the 2020 EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat RA.Methods:A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.Results:Thirty articles were selected for therapeutic strategies in patients with limited DMARD options due to contraindications, 73 for patients in whom previous b/tsDMARDs were not effective (‘true refractory RA’), and 51 for patients with predominantly non-inflammatory complaints. For patients with limited DMARD options, limited evidence was found on effective DMARD options for patients with concomitant obesity, and on safe DMARD options for patients with concomitant hepatitis B and C. In patients who failed ≥2 bDMARDs, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib were found to be more effective than placebo, but evidence was insufficient to prioritise. In patients who failed ≥1 bDMARD, there was a tendency of non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFi (Figure 1). Generally, b/tsDMARDs become less effective when patients failed more bDMARDs, this tendency was not clear for upadacitinib and filgotinib (Figure 2). In patients with predominantly non-inflammatory complaints (mainly function, pain and fatigue), exercise, education, psychological and self-management interventions were found to be of additional benefit.Conclusion:This SLR underscores the scarcity of evidence on the optimal treatment of difficult-to-treat RA patients. As difficult-to-treat RA is a newly defined disease state, all evidence is to an extent indirect. Several b/tsDMARDs were found to be effective in patients who failed ≥2 bDMARDs and generally effectiveness decreased with a higher number of failed bDMARDs. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found on non-inflammatory complaints.References:[1] Smolen JSet al. Ann Rheum Dis2020. Epub ahead of print.Disclosure of Interests:Nadia M. T. Roodenrijs: None declared, Attila Hamar: None declared, Melinda Kedves: None declared, György Nagy: None declared, Jacob M. van Laar Grant/research support from: MSD, Genentech, Consultant of: MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BMS, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Paco Welsing: None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document