Evidence Directions Research Articles

LO18: The state of the evidence for emergency medical services (EMS) care of prehospital hypoglycemia: an analysis of appraised research from the Prehospital Evidence-based Practice Program

Introduction: The Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) program is an online, freely accessible, continuously updated repository of appraised EMS research evidence. This report is an analysis of published evidence for EMS interventions used to assess and treat patients suffering from hypoglycemia. Methods: PubMed was systematically searched in June 2019. One author screened titles, abstracts and full-texts for relevance. Trained appraisers reviewed full text articles, scored each on a three-point Level of Evidence (LOE) scale (based on study design and quality) and three-point Direction of Evidence (DOE) scale (supportive, neutral, or opposing findings for each intervention's primary outcome), abstracted the primary outcome, setting and assigned an outcome category (patient or process). Second party appraisal was conducted for all included studies. The level and direction of each intervention was plotted in an evidence matrix, based on appraisals. Results: Twenty-nine studies were included and appraised for seven interventions: 5 drugs (Dextrose 50% (D50), Dextrose 10% (D10), glucagon, oral glucose and thiamine), one assessment tool (point-of-care (POC) glucose testing) and one call disposition (treat-and-release). The most frequently reported study primary outcomes were related to: clinical improvement (n = 15, 51.7%), feasibility/safety (n = 8, 27.6%), and diagnostics (n = 6, 20.7%). The majority of outcomes were patient focused (n = 18, 62.0%). Conclusion: EMS interventions for treating hypoglycemia are informed by high-quality supportive evidence. Both D50 and D10 are supported by high-quality evidence; suggesting D10 may be an effective alternative to the standard D50. “Treat-and-release” practices for hypoglycemia are supported by moderate-quality evidence for the patient related outcomes of relapse, patient preference and complications. This body of evidence is high-quality, patient-focused and conducted in the prehospital setting thus generalizable paramedic practice.

LO73: The state of the evidence for emergency medical services care of adult patients with sepsis: an analysis of appraised research from the Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) program

Introduction: The Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) program is an online, freely accessible, continuously updated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) evidence repository. This summary describes the research evidence for the identification and management of adult patients suffering from sepsis syndrome or septic shock. Methods: PubMed was searched in a systematic manner. One author reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance and two authors appraised each study selected for inclusion. Primary outcomes were extracted. Studies were scored by trained appraisers on a three-point Level of Evidence (LOE) scale (based on study design and quality) and a three-point Direction of Evidence (DOE) scale (supportive, neutral, or opposing findings based on the studies’ primary outcome for each intervention). LOE and DOE of each intervention were plotted on an evidence matrix (DOE x LOE). Results: Eighty-eight studies were included for 15 interventions listed in PEP. The interventions with the most evidence were related to identification tools (ID) (n = 26, 30%) and early goal directed therapy (EGDT) (n = 21, 24%). ID tools included Systematic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and other unique measures. The most common primary outcomes were related to diagnosis (n = 30, 34%), mortality (n = 40, 45%) and treatment goals (e.g. time to antibiotic) (n = 14, 16%). The evidence rank for the supported interventions were: supportive-high quality (n = 1, 7%) for crystalloid infusion, supportive-moderate quality (n = 7, 47%) for identification tools, prenotification, point of care lactate, titrated oxygen, temperature monitoring, and supportive-low quality (n = 1, 7%) for vasopressors. The benefit of prehospital antibiotics and EGDT remain inconclusive with a neutral DOE. There is moderate level evidence opposing use of high flow oxygen. Conclusion: EMS sepsis interventions are informed primarily by moderate quality supportive evidence. Several standard treatments are well supported by moderate to high quality evidence, as are identification tools. However, some standard in-hospital therapies are not supported by evidence in the prehospital setting, such as antibiotics, and EGDT. Based on primary outcomes, no identification tool appears superior. This evidence analysis can guide selection of appropriate prehospital therapies.

State of the Evidence for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Care: The Evolution and Current Methodology of the Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) Program.

Background:Emergency medical services (EMS) leaders and clinicians need to incorporate evidence into safe and effective clinical practice. Access to high-quality evidence, and the time to synthesize it, can be barriers to evidence-based practice. The Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) program is an online, freely accessible, repository of critically appraised evidence specific to EMS. This paper describes the evolution and current methodology of the PEP program.Methods/design:The purpose of PEP is to identify, catalog and critically appraise relevant studies. Following regular systematic searches, two trained appraisers critically appraise included studies and assign a score on three-point level of evidence (LOE) and direction of evidence (DOE) scales. Each clinical intervention is plotted on a 3 × 3 (LOE × DOE) evidence matrix, which provides a summary recommendation.Discussion:The PEP program is a unique knowledge translation tool, specific to EMS. End-users can easily identify which clinical interventions are, or are not, supported by evidence.

Do patients benefit from orthognathic surgery? A systematic review on the effects of elective orthognathic surgery on psychosocial functioning and patient satisfaction.

The main purpose of this systematic review was to determine the current state of evidence regarding patient satisfaction with, and the impact of, orthognathic surgery on psychosocial functioning of patients 17 yr of age and older. A secondary aim was to determine whether individuals with psychiatric disorders and mental health conditions are more likely to be dissatisfied with the treatment outcome than those without. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and Embase for relevant studies (up to 6 June 2016). After selection of articles we determined the Directness of Evidence (DoE) and Risk of Bias (RoB). We identified 3,948 studies (1,053 studies in Pubmed, 2,023 in Embase, and 872 in PsycInfo). Of these, 87 remained after screening of title and abstract, while after full-text screening only nine remained for DoE and RoB assessment. All nine studies had a high RoB and a low or moderate DoE. The quality of the methods of studies, published to date, on the effects of orthognathic surgery on patient satisfaction or the psychosocial impact carry a high RoB. Therefore, these do not allow inferences on the effects of orthognathic surgery on patient satisfaction or their psychosocial functioning.

P055: State of the evidence for emergency medical services (EMS) provision of palliative care: an analysis of appraised research from the Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) Project

Introduction: Patients who require end of life (EoL)/palliative care occasionally need assistance from paramedics. This review evaluated the evidence for paramedic-delivered EoL/palliative care interventions. Methods: The Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) Project methodology was used. A PubMed search was conducted, using Medical Subject headings and title/abstract key words. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance. Studies were not required to be EMS based but must have focused on interventions available to EMS personnel. Included full text studies were scored by trained primary appraisers on a three-point Level of Evidence (LOE) scale (high = 1, moderate = 2 and low = 3) and three-point Direction of Evidence (DOE) scale (supportive, neutral, or opposing). Studies were categorized by clinical condition (n=5) and by intervention (n=25), and plotted on 3×3 (DOE × LOE) tables. The study primary outcome and setting were determined. Results: The search returned 3255 articles; 86 were selected for abstract review; with 30 full text articles ultimately included. Intervention recommendations were: LOE 1-supportive (n=3, 12%), 2-supportive (n=2, 8%), 3-supportive (n=2, 8%), 1-neutral (n=2, 8%), 2-neutral (n=2, 8%), 3-neutral (n=4, 16%). No primary studies were identified for 10 (40%) interventions. Conditions with 1-supportive studies were: ‘breathlessness’ and ‘analgesia’. ‘Secretions’ condition had no relevant evidence. Interventions with 1-supportive evidence were: Haldol for agitation (n=1), fentanyl and morphine for analgesia (n=3 and n=1), narcotics for breathlessness (n=1). No intervention had opposing evidence. Primary outcomes were more commonly related to symptom relief (n=26, 87%), safety (n=3, 10%), or tolerability (n=1, 3%). Only one included study was conducted in the EMS setting. Conclusion: Evidence for interventions used by paramedics in the treatment of patients requiring EoL/palliative care was identified, as were evidence gaps. Little research was conducted in the EMS setting, and most interventions had few studies. These PEP findings highlight topics requiring high quality EMS research specific to EoL/palliative care to inform this growing aspect of paramedic practice.

P056: The state of the evidence for emergency medical services (EMS) care of blunt spinal trauma: an analysis of appraised research from the Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) Project

Introduction: The Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) project is an online, freely accessible, continuously updated EMS evidence repository. The summary of research evidence for EMS interventions used to care for blunt spinal trauma is described. Methods: PubMed was systematically searched. One author reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance. Included studies were scored by trained appraisers on a three-point Level of Evidence (LOE) scale (based on study design and quality) and three-point Direction of Evidence (DOE) scale (supportive, neutral, or opposing results). Second party appraisal was conducted for included studies. Interventions were plotted on a 3x3 table (DOE × LOE) for the spinal injury condition based on appraisal scores. The primary outcome was identified for each study and categorized. Results: Seventy-seven studies were included. Evidence for adult and paediatric blunt spinal trauma interventions was: supportive-high quality (n=1, 7 %), supportive-moderate quality (n=3, 21.4%), supportive-low quality (n=1, 7%), neutral-high quality (n=1, 7%), neutral-moderate quality (n=5, 35.7%), neutral-low quality (n=1, 7%), opposing-high quality (n=0, 0%), opposing-moderate quality (n=0, 0%), opposing-low quality (n=1, 7%). One (7%) intervention had no evidence. Interventions with supportive evidence were: steroids, cervical-spine clearance, scoop stretcher, self-extrication and “leaving helmet in place”. The evidence weakly opposed use of short extrication devices. Leading study primary outcomes were spinal motion, diagnostic accuracy, and pressure/discomfort. Conclusion: EMS blunt spinal trauma interventions are informed by moderate quality supportive and neutral evidence. Future research should focus on high quality studies filling identified evidence gaps using patient-oriented outcomes to best inform EMS care of blunt spinal injury.

Cochlear implantation in children with unilateral hearing loss: A systematic review.

To systematically review the literature on cochlear implantation (CI) for children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL). PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Embase databases were searched for articles up to June 29, 2015 for UHL, children and CI, and all of their synonyms. After screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligible articles, directness of evidence (DoE) and risk of bias (RoB) were assessed for the included articles. Study characteristics and data on our outcomes of interest (speech perception in noise, sound localization, quality of life, and speech and language development) were extracted. In total, 296 unique articles were retrieved, of which five articles satisfied the eligibility criteria. All of these articles were case series or case reports and had a low to moderate DoE and a high RoB. In these studies, heterogeneous findings were reported in small patient samples. Speech perception in noise and localization ability improved in most patients. Although only measured in one study each, quality of life and speech and language development improved. Most of these results were not statistically significant. No firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of CI in children with UHL, due to heterogeneous findings, small sample sizes, and the lack of high Level of Evidence studies. Based on the findings of this systematic review, cochlear implantation may be an effective treatment option in children with UHL. Laryngoscope, 126:713-721, 2016.