Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11406080›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Advanced trauma life support training for ambulance crews.

D Sethi, I Kwan, A M Kelly, I Roberts, F Bunn

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Is advanced life support better than basic life support in prehospital care? A systematic review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2010
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Three decades (1978-2008) of Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) practice revised and evidence revisited.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2008
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

D SethiHealth Policy Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK, WC1E 7HT. Dinesh.Sethi@lshtm.ac.uk
I Kwan
A M Kelly
I Roberts
F Bunn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an increasing global burden of disease from injuries. Models of trauma care initially developed in high-income countries are also being adopted in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Amongst these ambulance crews with Advanced Life Support (ALS) training are being promoted in LMIC as a strategy for improving outcomes for victims of trauma. However there is controversy as to the effectiveness of this health service intervention, and the evidence has yet to be rigorously appraised.

objectivesTo quantify the effectiveness of ambulance crews with ALS training versus crews with any other level of training in reducing mortality and morbidity in trauma patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (CCTR), the specialised register of the Cochrane Injuries Group, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and the National Research Register. We checked references of background papers and contacted authors to identify additional published or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies comparing effectiveness of ambulance crews with ALS training versus crews with any other levels of training in reducing mortality and morbidity in trauma patients. Studies which compared crews staffed by physicians versus others were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria to trial reports for inclusion and extracted data. MAIN

resultsWe found one randomised controlled trial, which included 16 trauma cases. However, outcome data were added to the main non-randomised cohort in the analysis, and data on these 16 cases are not yet available. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsIn the absence of evidence of the effectiveness of advanced life support, strong argument could be made that it should not be promoted outside the context of a properly concealed and otherwise rigorously conducted randomised controlled trial.

Indexed as

Life Support CareControlled Clinical Trials as TopicEmergency Medical TechniciansHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTraumatology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.