Search

Background We conducted a systematic review to evaluate and compare the accuracy of pre-hospital triage tools for major trauma in the context of the development of the Italian National Institute of Health guidelines on major trauma integrated management. Methods PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to November 2019 for studies investigating pre-hospital triage tools. The ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve and net clinical benefit for all selected triage tools were performed. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2. Certainty of the evidence was judged with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results We found 15 observational studies of 13 triage tools for adults and 11 for children. In adults, according to the ROC curve and the net clinical benefit, the most reliable tool was the Northern French Alps Trauma System (TRENAU), adopting injury severity score (ISS) > 15 as reference (sensitivity (Sn), 0.92; specificity (Sp), 0.41; 1 study; sample size, 2572; high certainty of the evidence). When mortality as reference was considered, the pre-hospital triage tool with the best net clinical benefit trajectory was the New Trauma Score (NTS) < 18 (Sn, 0.82; Sp, 0.86; 1 study; sample size, 1001; moderate certainty of the evidence). In children, high variability among all triage tools for sensitivity and specificity was found. Conclusion Sensitivity and specificity varied across all available pre-hospital trauma triage tools. TRENAU and NTS are the best accurate triage tools for adults, whereas in the pediatric area a large variability prevents any firm conclusion.

Background and aim of the work:Triage during the Covid-19 pandemic can impose difficult allocation deci-sions when demand for mechanical ventilation or intensive care beds greatly exceeds available resources. Tri-age criteria should be objective, ethical, transparent, applied equitably and publically disclosed. The aim of this review is to describe the triage tools and process for critical care resources in a pandemic health emergency. Methods:A narrative review was conducted of the literature on five electronic databases, namely PubMed, CINHAL, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase, searching for studies published from 2006 to June 2020. Results:The results describe different triage tools. A gold standard of triage does not exist for the adult or paediatric population. Using probability of short-term survival as the sole allocation principle is problematic. In general, each triage protocol should be applied with a specific ethical justification, including transparency, duty to care, duty to steward resources, duty to plan, and distributive justice. Conclusions:Clinical triage deci-sions based on clinical judgment alone are prone to inconsistent application by triage officers in a pandemic. An ethical framework can inform decision-making and improve accountability. It remains difficult to connect clinical criteria and ethical criteria, because of the models on offer for health services.

Purpose The effect of systemic hemostatic agents initiated during pre-hospital care of severely injured patients with ongoing bleeding or traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of systemic hemostatic agents as an adjunctive therapy in people with major trauma and hemorrhage or TBI in the context of developing the Italian National Institute of Health guidelines on major trauma integrated management. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to October 2021 for studies that investigated pre-hospital initiated treatment with systemic hemostatic agents. The certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the quality of each study was determined with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was overall mortality, and secondary outcomes included cause-specific mortality, health-related quality of life, any adverse effects and blood product use, hemorrhage expansion, and patient-reported outcomes. Results Five trials of tranexamic acid (TXA) met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. With a high certainty of evidence, when compared to placebo TXA reduced mortality at 24 h (relative risk = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.73–0.94) and at 1 month among trauma patients (0.91, 0.85–0.97). These results depend on the subgroup of patients with significant hemorrhage because in the subgroup of TBI there are no difference between TXA and placebo. TXA also reduced bleeding death and multiple organ failure whereas no difference in health-related quality of life. Conclusion Balancing benefits and harms, TXA initiated in the pre-hospital setting can be used for patients experiencing major trauma with significant hemorrhage since it reduces the risk of mortality at 24 h and one month with no difference in terms of adverse effects when compared to placebo. Considering the subgroup of severe TBI, no difference in mortality rate was found at 24 h and one month. These results highlight the need to conduct future studies to investigate the role of other systemic hemostatic agents in the pre-hospital settings.

Highlights • Epidemiological conditions should be monitored and enforced. • COVID-19 must be under control below thresholds of safeguards. • Testing, contact tracing, and isolation strategies are essential components to ease the lockdown. • The maintenance of social distancing measures is an overarching mitigation strategy. • The benefit gained from the implementation of social distancing was evident., In an attempt to curb the COVID-19 pandemic, several countries have implemented various social restrictions, such as closing schools and asking people to work from home. Nevertheless, after months of strict quarantine, a reopening of society is required. Many countries are planning exit strategies to progressively lift the lockdown without leading to an increase in the number of COVID-19 cases. Identifying exit strategies for a safe reopening of schools and places of work is critical in informing decision-makers on the management of the COVID-19 health crisis. This scoping review describes multiple population-wide strategies, including social distancing, testing, and contact tracing. It highlights how each strategy needs to be based on both the epidemiological situation and contextualize at local circumstances to anticipate the possibility of COVID-19 resurgence. However, the retrieved evidence lacks operational solutions and are mainly based on mathematical models and derived from grey literature. There is a need to report the impact of the implementation of country-tailored strategies and assess their effectiveness through high-quality experimental studies.

Osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease considered a leading cause of functional disability. Its treatment is based on a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, but the role of these latter is still debated. This overview of systematic reviews aimed at evaluating the short-term efficacy of different thermal modalities in patients with osteoarthritis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINHAL, Web of Science, ProQuest and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until October 2020, with no language restrictions. We selected the following outcomes a priori: pain, stiffness and quality of life. Seventeen systematic reviews containing 27 unique relevant studies were included. The quality of the reviews ranged from low to critically low. Substantial variations in terms of interventions studied, comparison groups, population, outcomes and follow-up between the included SRs were found. From a re-analysis of primary data, emerged that balneotherapy was effective in reducing pain and improving stiffness and quality of life, mud therapy significantly reduced pain and stiffness, and spa therapy showed pain relief. However, the evidence supporting the efficacy of different thermal modalities could be seriously flawed due to methodological quality and sample size, to the presence of important treatment variations, and to the high level of heterogeneity and the absence of a double-blind design. There is some encouraging evidence that deserves clinicians' consideration, suggesting that thermal modalities are effective on a short-term basis for treating patients with AO.

Clinical or care pathways are developed by a multidisciplinary team of healthcare practitioners, based on clinical evidence, and standardized processes. The evaluation of their framework/content quality is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe which tools and domains are able to critically evaluate the quality of clinical/care pathways. An overview of systematic reviews was conducted, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, using Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, from 2015 to 2020, and with snowballing methods. The quality of the reviews was assessed with Assessment the Methodology of Systematic Review (AMSTAR-2) and categorized with The Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass for the definition of the five domains: processes, service, clinical, team, and financial. We found nine reviews. Three achieved a high level of quality with AMSTAR-2. The areas classified according to The Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass were: 9.7% team multidisciplinary involvement, 13.2% clinical (morbidity/mortality), 44.3% process (continuity-clinical integration, transitional), 5.6% financial (length of stay), and 27.0% service (patient-/family-centered care). Overall, none of the 300 instruments retrieved could be considered a gold standard mainly because they did not cover all the critical pathway domains outlined by Leuven and Health Technology Assessment. This overview shows important insights for the definition of a multiprinciple framework of core domains for assessing the quality of pathways. The core domains should consider general critical aspects common to all pathways, but it is necessary to define specific domains for specific diseases, fast pathways, and adapting the tool to the cultural and organizational characteristics of the health system of each country.