Global Emergency Medicine: A Review of the Literature From 2016

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.

Emergency medicine research in the Philippines: A scoping review

Objectives

In this review, we aim to synthesize the current emergency medicine literature in the Philippines in order to determine the depth of research available in the country while delineating the gaps, helping to provide focus to future research in the field.

Methods

A literature review was done using 4 databases to identify emergency medicine studies in the Philippines. To explore the research trends among eligible studies, data on study type, countries, and institutions involved as well as study themes were collected and described.

Results

A total of 845 studies were screened, and 43 were included in this review. Results show that only 25% of emergency medicine studies were published before 2015. Most studies were observational (37.2%) or descriptive (37.2%) in nature with the University of the Philippines/Philippine General Hospital being the most common contributing institution (17.4%). Metro Manila was the most common study site with more than half of studies conducted in the area. Lastly, among the variety of study disciplines, disaster medicine was the most frequent topic comprising 30.2% of studies reviewed.

Conclusions

Compared to the global scene, Philippine emergency medicine research still has a long way to go. This study was able to provide a landscape of the current literature and highlight the study trends. Further, the findings here emphasize the need to expand the scope of emergency medicine studies in the country as it is still a young and growing field with studies tending to cluster around just a small number of institutions and regions.

Systematic review of co-design in digital health for COVID-19 research

Improving the quality of digital health care through information and communication technology can mainly contribute to the clinical, social, financial, and economic systems' success, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic period. The co-design approach, which unleashes the end-user power, can contribute actively in improving the healthcare systems. It deals with understanding the user behaviors, requirements, and motivations through observation, inspection, task analysis, and feedback techniques. Consequently, both the co-design and digital technologies might empower the management of patients' health and that of their families. The research strategy is based on a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to summarize how the co-design methodologies handled the existing technology-based health systems for their improvement. Based on the findings, we establish the following hypotheses: (i) A user-centered methodology for service implementation might offer a promising tool to enhance the healthcare services quality before they be launched; (ii) Several limitations can affect the co-design approach in digital health, such as a bias for a patients' group. Efforts have been made to reduce this risk by identifying bias at an early stage, or different groups should be included in the test phase for example; (iii) Use decision-making devices that handle technologies for patient and clinical healthcare solution.

Contributions from Turkey to the international emergency medicine literature during the COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis

Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the bibliometric contributions made from Türkiye to the international scientific literature in the field of Emergency Medicine during the 2020-2021 period, which covered the COVID-19 pandemic period. Materials and Methods: The present study included a total of 872 studies in Emergency Medicine WoS Indexes between 2020-2021. The study data were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database of Thomson Reuters – Clarivate Analytics, and the review included publications in the "Emergency Medicine" category from Turkey that spanned the pandemic period between the years 2019-2020. Results: 78.1% of the aforementioned studies were included in the Science Citation Index Expanded and 88.2% were original research papers. A total of 2930 researchers were involved in the 872 publications in the scope of the study. The average number of co-authors per publication was 5.2, where the average number of publications per author was 0.3. As regards the scope of the publications, the main topic was "SARS-Cov-2 and pandemic". The aforementioned main theme was associated with general emergency medicine practices, COVID-19 pneumonia, and high-mortality emergency cases. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first that investigated the studies from Turkey that contributed to the international literature in the field of emergency medicine during the pandemic period and provided valuable data reflecting the scientific productivity of the researchers, who continued their research in the field of emergency medicine, during the pandemic period.

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.

A Pacific needs analysis model: a proposed methodology for assessing the needs of facility-based emergency care in the Pacific region

Background

Emergency care (EC) describes team-based, multidisciplinary clinical service provision, advocacy and health systems strengthening to address all urgent aspects of illness and injury for all people. In order to improve facility-based EC delivery, a structured framework is necessary to outline current capacity and future needs. This paper draws on examples of EC Needs Assessments performed at the national hospitals of three different Pacific Island Countries (PICs), to describe the development, implementation and validation of a structured assessment tool and methodological approach to conducting an EC Needs Assessment in the Pacific region.

Methods

This is a retrospective, descriptive analysis of the development of the Pacific Emergency Care Assessment (PECA) table using patient-focused principles within an EC systems framework. Tool implementation occurred through observation, literature review and interviews using a strengths-based, action-research and ethnographic methodological approach in Timor-Leste, Kiribati and the Solomon Islands. The 2014 Solomon Islands EC Needs Assessment provides the main context to illustrate and discuss the overall conduct, feasibility, validity and reliability of the PECA tool and methodological approach.

Results

In each site, the methodological implementation enabled completion of both the PECA table and comprehensive report within approximately 6 weeks of first arriving in country. Reports synthesising findings, recommendations, priority action areas and strategies were distributed widely amongst stakeholders. Examples illustrate Face and Content, Construct and Catalytic validity, including subsequent process and infrastructure improvements triggered by the EC Needs Assessment in each site. Triangulation of information and consistency of use over time enhanced reliability of the PECA tool.

Compared to other EC assessment models, the Pacific approach enabled rich data on capacity and real-life function of EC facilities. The qualitative, strengths-based method engenders long-term partnerships and positive action, but takes time and requires tailoring to a specific site.

Conclusion

In PICs and other global contexts where EC resources are underdeveloped, a PECA-style approach to conducting an EC Needs Assessment can trigger positive change through high local stakeholder engagement. Testing this qualitative implementation method with a standardised EC assessment tool in other limited resource contexts is the next step to further improve global EC.

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.

Disaster Medicine: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature From 2016

OBJECTIVE

The Society of Academic Emergency Medicine Disaster Medicine Interest Group, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response - Technical Resources, Assistance Center, and Information Exchange (ASPR TRACIE) team, and the National Institutes of Health Library searched disaster medicine peer-reviewed and gray literature to identify, review, and disseminate the most important new research in this field for academics and practitioners.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus databases were searched with key words. Additional gray literature and focused hand search were performed. A Level I review of titles and abstracts with inclusion criteria of disaster medicine, health care system, and disaster type concepts was performed. Eight reviewers performed Level II full-text review and formal scoring for overall quality, impact, clarity, and importance, with scoring ranging from 0 to 20. Reviewers summarized and critiqued articles scoring 16.5 and above.

RESULTS

Articles totaling 1176 were identified, and 347 were screened in a Level II review. Of these, 193 (56%) were Original Research, 117 (34%) Case Report or other, and 37 (11%) were Review/Meta-Analysis. The average final score after a Level II review was 11.34. Eighteen articles scored 16.5 or higher. Of the 18 articles, 9 (50%) were Case Report or other, 7 (39%) were Original Research, and 2 (11%) were Review/Meta-Analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This first review highlighted the breadth of disaster medicine, including emerging infectious disease outbreaks, terror attacks, and natural disasters. We hope this review becomes an annual source of actionable, pertinent literature for the emerging field of disaster medicine.

The Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in Emergency Medicine Are Frequently Fragile

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials govern evidence-based clinical practice, and it is therefore critical that their results be robust. We aim to investigate the fragility of randomized controlled trials in emergency medicine by determining how often significance would be nullified with small changes in outcomes using the fragility index.

METHODS

We conducted a methodological systematic review of randomized controlled trials in emergency medicine published in the top 10 general medicine journals and the top 10 emergency medicine journals. Inclusion criteria required that trials be emergency medicine studies structured with a 2-arm or 2-by-2 factorial design and report at least 1 statistically significant dichotomous outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 180 trials met inclusion criteria. The median fragility index across all trials in emergency medicine was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 10) and the median sample size was 140 (IQR 69.5 to 286). For trials from general medicine journals (n=32), the median fragility index was 9 (IQR 4 to 16.5) and the median sample size was 415.5 (IQR 219.5 to 901); for trials from emergency medicine journals (n=148), the median fragility index was 4 (IQR 1 to 9) and the median sample size was 119 (IQR 60 to 227.25). One third of all trials (62/180) had a loss to follow-up that was greater than or equal to the fragility index. There was a modest correlation between fragility index and total number of events (r=0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.48) and a weak correlation between fragility index and total sample size (r=0.26; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39). There was no correlation between fragility index and either P value (r=-0.14; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.006) or Science Citation Index (r=0.07; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.22).

CONCLUSION

The statistical significance of the results of randomized controlled trials in emergency medicine was often contingent on a small number of events. Until frequentist interpretation of clinical trials is replaced with Bayesian analysis, the fragility index may have utility as a tool to aid clinicians in assessing the robustness of randomized controlled trials in emergency medicine when considered in conjunction with the fragility quotient and other reported metrics.

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.