ArticleResuscitation plus2021
Drowning and aquatic injuries dictionary.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Drowning incidents precipitated by unusual causes (DIPUCs): A narrative review of their diagnoses, evaluation and management.Resuscitation plus · 2024Review
- Prehospital guidelines on in-water traumatic spinal injuries for lifeguards and prehospital emergency medical services: an international Delphi consensus study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Resuscitation plus - Initial successes and future direction.Resuscitation plus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrowning is a significant public health issue with more than 320,000 deaths globally every year. These numbers are greatly underestimated, however, due to factors such as inadequate data collection, inconsistent categorization and failure to report in certain regions and cultures.The objective of this study was to develop a standardised drowning dictionary using a consensus-based approach. Through creation of this resource, improved clarity amongst stakeholders will be achieved and, as a result, so will our understanding of the drowning issue. METHODOLOGY: A list of terms and their definitions were created and sent to 16 drowning experts with a broad range of backgrounds across four continents and six languages. A review was conducted using a modified Delphi process over five rounds. A sixth round was done by an external panel evaluating the terms' content validity.
resultsThe drowning dictionary included more than 350 terms. Of these, less than 10% had been previously published in peer review literature. On average, the external expert validity endorsing the dictionary shows a Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.91, exceeding the scientific recommended value. Ninety one percent of the items present an I-CVI (Level Content Validity Index) value considered acceptable (>0.78). The endorsement was not a universal agreement (S-CVI/UA: 0.44).
conclusionThe drowning dictionary provides a common language, and the authors envisage that its use will facilitate collaboration and comparison across prevention sectors, education, research, policy and treatment. The dictionary will be open to readers for discussion and further review at www.idra.world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.