Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20635067›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2010

[Pediatric emergency patients in the air rescue service. Mission reality with special consideration to "invasive" measures].

M Helm, G Biehn, L Lampl, M Bernhard

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M HelmAbteilung für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin - Sektion Notfallmedizin, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 40, 89070 Ulm. matthias.helm@extern.uni-ulm.de
G Biehn
L Lampl
M Bernhard
Bundeswehrkrankenhaus · DEKlinikum Fulda · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Germany only 2-9% of rescue missions performed by emergency physicians are pediatric emergencies. Therefore, an emergency physician has to deal with a pediatric emergency on average every 1.1-1.3 months. There are only a few studies in the literature evaluating the frequency of "invasive" techniques and procedures (e.g. vascular access, endotracheal intubation, alternative airway techniques and insertion of chest tube) in pediatric patients in the prehospital setting performed by German emergency physicians. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency of these kinds of procedures in pediatric emergencies in the field of the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS).

methodsEvaluation of pediatric emergencies (defined as <18 years of age) over a 4 year period at the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) was carried out retrospectively.

resultsDuring the study period 5,826 rescue missions (4,778 primary rescue missions, 571 inter-hospital transfers and 461 others) were completed. A total of 643 (11%) pediatric emergency patients were treated by the HEMS team. Out of this pediatric study group 16.3% had an initial Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) <9 and 59.3% were rated IV-VII on the National Advisory Committee of Aeronautics (NACA) scale. Within the pediatric study group children 1-5 years of age and children 14-17 years of age were predominant (29.2% and 25.8%, respectively). Regarding the whole pediatric study group trauma was predominant (57.9%). In children <1 year of age and children 1-4 years of age, non-traumatic emergencies were predominant (84.2% and 56.9%, respectively), whereas in children 6-9 years of age, 10-13 years of age and 14-17 years of age, traumatic injuries were predominant (64.2%, 74.8% and 72.3%, respectively). Non-invasive standard monitoring by ECG (electrocardiogram), blood pressure (RR) and pulse oximetry (S(p)O(2)) was established in more than 75% of the pediatric patients (ECG: 77.0%, RR: 81.5%, S(p)O(2): 96.7%) and the older the children the more monitoring was established (children <1 year of age: ECG: 47.4%, RR: 36.8%, S(p)O(2): 93.0% vs. children 14-17 years of age: ECG: 89.8%, RR: 98.2%, S(p)O(2): 100.0%). Regarding the whole pediatric study group, vascular access was established in 81.5% of the cases and in 2.5% of the cases as intraosseous infusion. Out of a total of 16 intraosseous infusions performed within the study period 14 (87.4%) were performed in children <6 years of age. In 20.7% of the cases an endotracheal intubation was performed and in 92.5% of these cases induction of anaesthesia was necessary. The insertion of a chest tube within the study period was only necessary in 1.2% of the cases.

conclusionsCompared to the results of other studies the number of pediatric emergency patients with a NACA score IV-VII in this study is very high. Furthermore, the percentages of non-invasive monitoring procedures applied to the patients as well as invasive therapeutic procedures performed by the HEMS team were also high. Therefore, a special pediatric training course for emergency physicians seems to be necessary.

Indexed as

AdolescentAir AmbulancesBlood PressureCatheters, IndwellingChildChild, PreschoolElectrocardiographyEmergency Medical ServicesGermanyGlasgow Coma ScaleHumansInfantInfusions, IntraosseousIntubation, IntratrachealMonitoring, PhysiologicOximetry

Identifiers

PMID20635067
OpenAlexW97683725

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.