Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39345661›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2024

The ABCDE approach in critically ill patients: A scoping review of assessment tools, adherence and reported outcomes.

Laura J Bruinink, Marjolein Linders, Willem P de Boode, Cornelia R M G Fluit, Marije Hogeveen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Laura J BruininkRadboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Department of Paediatrics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marjolein LindersRadboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Department of Paediatrics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Willem P de BoodeRadboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Department of Paediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Cornelia R M G FluitRadboud University Medical Center, Radboudumc Health Academy, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marije HogeveenRadboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Department of Paediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The systematic Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a priority-based consensus approach for the primary assessment of all categories of critically ill or injured patients. The aims of this review are to provide a wide overview of all relevant literature about existing ABCDE assessment tools, adherence to the ABCDE approach and related outcomes of teaching or application of the ABCDE approach by healthcare professionals. Methods: A comprehensive scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. An a priori protocol was developed. In March 2024, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched to identify studies describing healthcare professionals applying the ABCDE approach in either simulation settings or clinical practice. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion and performed data extraction. Results: From n = 8165 results, fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and reported data from clinical care (n = 27) or simulation settings (n = 30). Forty-two studies reported 39 different assessment tools, containing 5 to 36 items. Adherence to the approach was reported in 43 studies and varied from 18-84% in clinical practice and from 29-35% pre-intervention to 65-97% post-intervention in simulation settings. Team leader presence and attending simulation training improved adherence. Data on patient outcomes were remarkably scarce. Conclusion: Many different tools with variable content were identified to assess the ABCDE approach. Adherence was the most frequently reported outcome and varied widely among included studies. However, association between the ABCDE approach and patient outcomes is yet to be investigated.

Indexed as

ABCDEAdherenceAirway Breathing Circulation Disability ExposureAssessmentPrimary survey

Identifiers

PMID39345661
PMCPMC11437753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.