Global Emergency Medicine: A Review of the Literature From 2015

Global Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review of the Literature from 2022

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to identify the highest quality global emergency medicine (GEM) research published in 2022. The top articles are compiled in a comprehensive list of all the year's GEM articles and narrative summaries are performed on those included.

METHODS

A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify all GEM articles published in 2022 and included a manual supplemental screen of 11 organizational websites for gray literature (GRAY). A team of trained reviewers and editors screened all identified titles and abstracts, based on three case definition categories: disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and emergency medicine development (EMD). Articles meeting these definitions were independently scored by two reviewers using rubrics for original research (OR), review (RE) articles, and GRAY. Articles that scored in the top 5% from each category as well as the overall top 5% of articles were included for narrative summary.

RESULTS

The 2022 search identified 58,510 articles in the main review, of which 524 articles screened in for scoring, respectively, 30% and 18% increases from last year. After duplicates were removed, 36 articles were included for narrative summary. The GRAY search identified 7755 articles, of which 33 were scored and one was included for narrative summary. ECRLS remained the largest category (27; 73%), followed by DHR (7; 19%) and EMD (3; 8%). OR articles remained more common than RE articles (64% vs. 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

The waning of the COVID-19 pandemic has not affected the continued growth in GEM literature. Articles related to prehospital care, mental health and resilience among patients and health care workers, streamlining pediatric infectious disease care, and disaster preparedness were featured in this year's review. The continued lack of EMD studies despite the global growth of GEM highlights a need for more scholarly dissemination of best practices.

Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2021

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to identify the most important and impactful peer-reviewed global emergency medicine (GEM) articles published in 2021. The top articles are summarized in brief narratives and accompanied by a comprehensive list of all identified articles that address the topic during the year to serve as a reference for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.

METHODS

A systematic PubMed search was carried out to identify all GEM articles published in 2021. Title and abstract screening was performed by trained reviewers and editors to identify articles in one of three categories based on predefined criteria: disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and emergency medicine development (EMD). Included articles were each scored by two reviewers using established rubrics for original (OR) and review (RE) articles. The top 5% of articles overall and the top 5% of articles from each category (DHR, ECRLS, EMD, OR, and RE) were included for narrative summary.

RESULTS

The 2021 search identified 44,839 articles, of which 444 articles screened in for scoring, 25% and 22% increases from 2020, respectively. After removal of duplicates, 23 articles were included for narrative summary. ECRLS constituted the largest category (n = 16, 70%), followed by EMD (n = 4, 17%) and DHR (n = 3, 13%). The majority of top articles were OR (n = 14, 61%) compared to RE (n = 9, 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

The GEM peer-reviewed literature continued to grow at a fast rate in 2021, reflecting the continued expansion and maturation of this subspecialty of emergency medicine. Few high-quality articles focused on DHR and EMD, suggesting a need for further efforts in those fields. Future efforts should focus on improving the diversity of GEM research and equitable representation.

Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2020

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to identify, screen, highlight, review, and summarize some of the most rigorously conducted and impactful original research (OR) and review articles (RE) in global emergency medicine (EM) published in 2020 in the peer-reviewed and gray literature.

METHODS

A broad systematic search of peer-reviewed publications related to global EM indexed on PubMed and in the gray literature was conducted. The titles and abstracts of the articles on this list were screened by members of the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) Group to identify those that met our criteria of OR or RE in the domains of disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and EM development. Those articles that met these screening criteria were then scored using one of three scoring templates appropriate to the article type. Those articles that scored in the top 5% then underwent in-depth narrative summarization.

RESULTS

The 2020 GEMLR search initially identified 35,970 articles, more than 50% more than last year's search. From these, 364 were scored based on their full text. Nearly three-fourths of the scored articles constituted OR, of which nearly three-fourths employed quantitative research methods. Nearly 10% of the articles identified this year were directly related to COVID-19. Research involving ECRLS again constituted most of the articles in this year's review, accounting for more than 60% of the literature scored. A total of 20 articles underwent in-depth narrative critiques.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of studies relevant to global EM identified by our search was very similar to that of last year. Revisions to our methodology to identify a broader range of research were successful in identifying more qualitative research and studies related to DHR. The number of COVID-19-related articles is likely to continue to increase in subsequent years.

Global Emergency Medicine: A Review of the Literature From 2019

OBJECTIVE

The annual systematic search of the peer-reviewed and gray literature relevant to global emergency medicine (EM) was conducted by the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) to screen, evaluate, and review the most rigorously conducted and relevant research in global EM published in 2019.

METHODS

After a broad search of PubMed and websites of organizations publishing relevant gray literature, all articles that were deemed relevant to the fields of disaster and humanitarian response, emergency care in resource-limited settings, and EM development by at least one reviewer, an editor, and the managing editors were then scored by two different reviewers using a 20-point scoring template relevant to either original research (OR) or review (RE) articles. This scoring system rates articles on their clarity, research design, ethics, importance to global EM, and breadth of impact. Articles that then scored in the top 5% were then critiqued in depth.

RESULTS

A total of 23,321 article titles and abstracts were screened by 22 reviewers with a wide swath of clinical and research experience in global EM. From these, a total of 356 articles underwent full-text review and scoring on the 20-point scale; 26% were categorized as disaster and humanitarian response, 58% as emergency care in resource-limited settings, and 15% as EM development. Of these 356 articles, 276 (77.5%) were OR articles and 80 (22.5%) were RE articles. The 16 articles that scored in the top 5% (>17.5 of 20 points) received full in-depth narrative summaries.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2019, the overall number of studies relevant to global EM that were identified by our search decreased from the prior year, but more high-scoring articles related to the development of EM clinical practice and as a specialty in resource-constrained settings were identified.

Global Emergency Medicine: A Review of the Literature from 2018

OBJECTIVES

The Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) conducts a systematic annual search of peer-reviewed and gray literature relevant to global emergency medicine (EM) to identify, review, and disseminate the most rigorously conducted and widely relevant research in global EM.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, a comprehensive retrieval of articles from specific journals, and search of the gray literature were conducted. Title and abstracts retrieved by these searches were screened by a total of 22 reviewers based on their relevance to the field of global EM, across the domains of disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and emergency medicine development (EMD). All articles that were deemed relevant by at least one reviewer, their editor, and the managing editor underwent formal scoring of overall methodologic quality and importance to global EM. Two independent reviewers scored all articles; editors provided a third score in cases of widely discrepant scores.

RESULTS

A total of 19,102 articles were identified by the searches and, after screening and removal of duplicates, a total of 517 articles underwent full review. Twenty-five percent were categorized as DHR, 61% as ECRLS, and 15% as EMD. Inter-rater reliability testing between the reviewers revealed a Cohen's kappa score of 0.213 when considering the complete score or 0.426 when excluding the more subjective half of the score. A total of 25 articles scored higher than 17.5 of 20; these were selected for a full summary and critique.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2018, the total number of articles relevant to global EM that were identified by our search continued to increase. Studies and reviews focusing on pediatric infections, several new and traditionally underrepresented topics, and landscape reviews that may help guide clinical care in new settings represented the majority of top-scoring articles. A shortage of articles related to the development of EM as a specialty was identified.

Global Emergency Medicine: A Review of the Literature From 2017

OBJECTIVES

The Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) conducts an annual search of peer-reviewed and gray literature relevant to global emergency medicine (EM) to identify, review, and disseminate the most important new research in this field to a global audience of academics and clinical practitioners.

METHODS

This year, 17,722 articles written in three languages were identified by our electronic search. These articles were distributed among 20 reviewers for initial screening based on their relevance to the field of global EM. Another two reviewers searched the gray literature, yielding an additional 11 articles. All articles that were deemed appropriate by at least one reviewer and approved by their editor underwent formal scoring of overall quality and importance. Two independent reviewers scored all articles.

RESULTS

A total of 848 articles met our inclusion criteria and underwent full review. Sixty-three percent were categorized as emergency care in resource-limited settings, 23% as disaster and humanitarian response, and 14% as EM development. Twenty-one articles received scores of 18.5 or higher out of a maximum score 20 and were selected for formal summary and critique. Inter-rater reliability testing between reviewers revealed a Cohen's kappa of 0.344.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2017, the total number of articles identified by our search continued to increase. Studies and reviews with a focus on infectious diseases, pediatrics, and trauma represented the majority of top-scoring articles.

Bystander Assistance for Trauma Victims in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Prevalence and Training Interventions

OBJECTIVE

Lack of organized prehospital care may contribute to the disproportionate burden of trauma-related deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends bystander training in basic principles of first aid and victim transport; however, prevalence of bystander or layperson assistance to trauma victims in LMICs has not been well-described, and organized reviews of existing evidence for bystander training are lacking. This systematic review aims to 1) describe the prevalence of bystander or layperson aid or transport for trauma victims in the prehospital setting in LMICs and 2) ascertain impacts of bystander training interventions in these settings.

METHODS

A systematic search of OVID Medline, Cochrane Library, and relevant gray literature was conducted. We included 1) all studies detailing prevalence of bystander-administered aid or transport for trauma victims in LMICs and 2) all randomized controlled trials and observational studies evaluating bystander training interventions. We extracted study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes data. Study quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

RESULTS

Sixty-two studies detailed prevalence of bystander transport and aid. Family members, police, and bus or taxi drivers commonly transported patients; a majority of patients, up to >94%, received aid from bystanders. Twenty-four studies examined impacts of training interventions. Only one study looked at transport interventions; the remainder addressed first aid training. Interventions varied in content, duration, and target learners. Evidence was generally of low quality, but all studies demonstrated improvements in layperson knowledge and skills. Five studies reported a mortality reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in data reporting and outcomes limited formal meta-analysis. However, this review shows high rates of bystander involvement in prehospital trauma care and transport in LMICs and highlights the need for bystander training. Bystander training in these settings is feasible and may have an important impact on meaningful outcomes such as mortality. Categories of involved bystanders varied by region and training interventions should be targeted at relevant groups. "Train the trainer" models appear promising in securing community engagement and maximizing participation. Further research is needed to examine the value of bystander transport networks in trauma.

Humanitarian health computing using artificial intelligence and social media: A narrative literature review

INTRODUCTION

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), over 130 million people are in constant need of humanitarian assistance due to natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and conflicts, among other factors. These health crises can compromise the resilience of healthcare systems, which are essential for achieving the health objectives of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN). During a humanitarian health crisis, rapid and informed decision making is required. This is often challenging due to information scarcity, limited resources, and strict time constraints. Moreover, the traditional approach to digital health development, which involves a substantial requirement analysis, a feasibility study, and deployment of technology, is ill-suited for many crisis contexts. The emergence of Web 2.0 technologies and social media platforms in the past decade, such as Twitter, has created a new paradigm of massive information and misinformation, in which new technologies need to be developed to aid rapid decision making during humanitarian health crises.

OBJECTIVE

Humanitarian health crises increasingly require the analysis of massive amounts of information produced by different sources, such as social media content, and, hence, they are a prime case for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to help identify relevant information and make it actionable. To identify challenges and opportunities for using AI in humanitarian health crises, we reviewed the literature on the use of AI techniques to process social media.

METHODOLOGY

We performed a narrative literature review aimed at identifying examples of the use of AI in humanitarian health crises. Our search strategy was designed to get a broad overview of the different applications of AI in a humanitarian health crisis and their challenges. A total of 1459 articles were screened, and 24 articles were included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

Successful case studies of AI applications in a humanitarian health crisis have been reported, such as for outbreak detection. A commonly shared concern in the reviewed literature is the technical challenge of analyzing large amounts of data in real time. Data interoperability, which is essential to data sharing, is also a barrier with regard to the integration of online and traditional data sources. Human and organizational aspects that might be key factors for the adoption of AI and social media remain understudied. There is also a publication bias toward high-income countries, as we identified few examples in low-income countries. Further, we did not identify any examples of certain types of major crisis, such armed conflicts, in which misinformation might be more common.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of using AI to extract valuable information during a humanitarian health crisis is proven in many cases. There is a lack of research on how to integrate the use of AI into the work-flow and large-scale deployments of humanitarian aid during a health crisis.

Global Emergency Medicine: A Review of the Literature From 2016

OBJECTIVES

The Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) conducts an annual search of peer-reviewed and gray literature relevant to global emergency medicine (EM) to identify, review, and disseminate the most important new research in this field to a global audience of academics and clinical practitioners.

METHODS

This year 13,890 articles written in four languages were identified by our search. These articles were distributed among 20 reviewers for initial screening based on their relevance to the field of global EM. An additional two reviewers searched the gray literature. All articles that were deemed appropriate by at least one reviewer and approved by their editor underwent formal scoring of overall quality and importance. Two independent reviewers scored all articles.

RESULTS

A total of 716 articles met our inclusion criteria and underwent full review. Fifty-nine percent were categorized as emergency care in resource-limited settings, 17% as EM development, and 24% as disaster and humanitarian response. Nineteen articles received scores of 18.5 or higher out of a maximum score of 20 and were selected for formal summary and critique. Inter-rater reliability testing between reviewers revealed Cohen's kappa of 0.441.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2016, the total number of articles identified by our search continued to increase. The proportion of articles in each of the three categories remained stable. Studies and reviews with a focus on infectious diseases, pediatrics, and the use of ultrasound in resource-limited settings represented the majority of articles selected for final review.

Global Health and Emergency Care: Defining Clinical Research Priorities

OBJECTIVES

Despite recent strides in the development of global emergency medicine (EM), the field continues to lag in applying a scientific approach to identifying critical knowledge gaps and advancing evidence-based solutions to clinical and public health problems seen in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Here, progress on the global EM research agenda created at the 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine Global Health and Emergency Care Consensus Conference is evaluated and critical areas for future development in emergency care research internationally are identified.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all studies compiled in the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) database from 2013 through 2015 was conducted. Articles were categorized and analyzed using descriptive quantitative measures and structured data matrices. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 2016 Annual Meeting then further conceptualized and defined global EM research priorities utilizing consensus-based decision making.

RESULTS

Research trends in global EM research published between 2013 and 2015 show a predominance of observational studies relative to interventional or descriptive studies, with the majority of research conducted in the inpatient setting in comparison to the ED or prehospital setting. Studies on communicable diseases and injury were the most prevalent, with a relative dearth of research on chronic noncommunicable diseases. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group identified conceptual frameworks to define high-impact research priorities, including the traditional approach of using global burden of disease to define priorities and the impact of EM on individual clinical care and public health opportunities. EM research is also described through a population lens approach, including gender, pediatrics, and migrant and refugee health.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent strides in global EM research and a proliferation of scholarly output in the field, further work is required to advocate for and inform research priorities in global EM. The priorities outlined in this paper aim to guide future research in the field, with the goal of advancing the development of EM worldwide.