No abstract

BackgroundDespite appropriate care, most patients do not survive traumatic cardiac arrest, and many survivors suffer from permanent neurological disability. The prevalence of non-dismal neurological outcomes remains unclear.ObjectivesThe aim of the current review is to summarize and assess the quality of reporting of the neurological outcomes in traumatic cardiac arrest survivors.Data sourcesA systematic review of Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and ProQuest databases was performed from inception of the database to July 2020.Study eligibility criteriaObservational cohort studies that reported neurological outcomes of patients surviving traumatic cardiac arrest were included.Participants and interventionsPatients who were resuscitated following traumatic cardiac arrest.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsThe quality of the included studies was assessed using ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) for observational studies.ResultsFrom 4295 retrieved studies, 40 were included (n=23 644 patients). The survival rate was 9.2% (n=2168 patients). Neurological status was primarily assessed at discharge. Overall, 45.8% of the survivors had good or moderate neurological recovery, 29.0% had severe neurological disability or suffered a vegetative state, and 25.2% had missing neurological outcomes. Seventeen studies qualitatively described neurological outcomes based on patient disposition and 23 studies used standardized outcome scales. 28 studies had a serious risk of bias and 12 had moderate risk of bias.LimitationsThe existing literature is characterized by inadequate outcome reporting and a high risk of bias, which limit our ability to prognosticate in this patient population.Conclusions or implications of key findingsGood and moderate neurological recoveries are frequently reported in patients who survive traumatic cardiac arrest. Prospective studies focused on quality of survivorship in traumatic arrest are urgently needed.Level of evidenceSystematic review, level IV.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020198482.

Abstract Although many reviews describe significant advances in burn care, no studies have yet examined why these papers had such profound impact. Our objective was to identify the most highly cited, as well as the most clinically influential studies in burns, and describe their characteristics, to inform future research in the field. Web of Science was searched using keywords related to burns to identify the 100 most-cited burns papers. Study design, year and journal of publication, and subject of the paper were recorded. A mixed-methods approach was used to identify papers in burn research leading to change in clinical practice. Characteristics of these papers were compared with identify any factors predictive of future citations or clinical influence. The 100 highly cited papers were cited between 159 and 907 times. There was no correlation between total citations and journal impact factor, year of publication, or subject area. Level of evidence did not predict future citations or influence, but may be influenced by evolving research standards. Of 23 clinically influential studies, 6 were not among 100 most-cited. Using papers only from the 100 most-cited list was not sufficient to identify leading researchers in burns. Citation analysis is a beneficial, however not alone sufficient to identify landmark papers, particularly for multidisciplinary fields such as burns.

No abstract

E41Critics say that the bureaucratic costs will outweigh cost-recovery under Alberta's new legislation to make criminals pay for medical treatment.