First Responders: Clinical Care of Blast Trauma in the Prehospital Setting

Pickett, Jason; Todd, Joshua R.; Kue, Ricky

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40655-4_12

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, there is no scientific consensus to date suggesting that a 4 psi peak overpressure threshold is a cutoff for safe exposure to the brain, nor does it account for impulse pressure. Additionally, an intact tympanic membrane does not accurately predict whether a person may have other primary blast injuries such as damage to the brain or lungs ( 28 , 29 ). It is also worth noting that the intensity of the overpressure to which a warfighter may be exposed differs based on proximity to the source of the blast, which complicates the articulation of the distinction between HLB and LLB when that distinction is based primarily on the intensity of overpressure experienced.…”

Section: Prescriptive Conventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting on the Same Page: Consolidating Terminology to Facilitate Cross-Disciplinary Health-Related Blast Research

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The consequences of blast exposure (including both high-level and low-level blast) have been a focal point of military interest and research for years. Recent mandates from Congress (e.g., National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, section 734) have further accelerated these efforts, facilitating collaborations between research teams from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds. Based on findings from a recent scoping review, we argue that the scientific field of blast research is plagued by inconsistencies in both conceptualization of relevant constructs and terminology used to describe them. These issues hamper our ability to interpret study methods and findings, hinder efforts to integrate findings across studies to reach scientific consensus, and increase the likelihood of redundant efforts. We argue that multidisciplinary experts in this field require a universal language and clear, standardized terminology to further advance the important work of examining the effects of blast exposure on human health, performance, and well-being. To this end, we present a summary of descriptive conventions regarding the language scientists currently use when discussing blast-related exposures and outcomes based on findings from a recent scoping review. We then provide prescriptive conventions about how these terms should be used by clearly conceptualizing and explicitly defining relevant constructs. Specifically, we summarize essential concepts relevant to the study of blast, precisely distinguish between high-level blast and low-level blast, and discuss how the terms acute, chronic, exposure, and outcome should be used when referring to the health-related consequences of blast exposure.

show abstract

Section: Prescriptive Conventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%