Annals of emergency medicine
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Double-blind, randomized study of nalmefene and naloxone in emergency department patients with suspected narcotic overdose.
To compare the efficacy, safety, and withdrawal symptoms in emergency department patients with suspected narcotic overdose treated with nalmefene, an opioid antagonist with a 4- to 10-hour duration of action, with those treated with naloxone. ⋯ In this study of patients with varied potential causes of altered consciousness, nalmefene (1 mg and 2 mg) and naloxone (2 mg) appeared to be efficacious, safe, and to yield similar clinical outcomes.
-
This study was conducted to determine whether the addition of inhaled ipratropium to inhaled beta-agonist therapy is effective in the treatment of adults with acute asthma exacerbation. ⋯ There is a modest statistical improvement in airflow obstruction when ipratropium is used as an adjunctive treatment to beta2 -agonists for the treatment of acute asthma exacerbation. Although the clinical significance of this improvement in airflow obstruction remains unclear, it would seem reasonable to recommend the use of combination ipratropium/ beta-agonist therapy in acute adult asthmatic exacerbations, since the addition of ipratropium seemed to provide physiologic evidence of benefit without risk of adverse effects.
-
To determine whether the use of empiric chest radiography (CXR) is of significant value in detecting clinically unsuspected acute chest syndrome (ACS) in febrile patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). ⋯ ACS is common in patients with SCD who present with fever and was grossly underestimated by evaluating physicians. History and physical examination appear to be of little value in defining which febrile patients require CXR. In view of the mortality and morbidity associated with ACS, empiric CXR should be considered when evaluating a febrile patient with SCD.
-
Comparative Study
Identification of randomized controlled trials from the emergency medicine literature: comparison of hand searching versus MEDLINE searching.
As part of an ongoing project to identify all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the emergency medicine literature, in association with the Cochrane Collaboration, 2 discrete studies were undertaken; the first, to compare motives for active participation in hand searching of the literature by emergency medicine professionals, and the second, to compare hand searching with MEDLINE searching of a number of emergency medicine journals. ⋯ The response rates from mailing to members of the relevant professional organizations letters requesting participation in this work were very low and suggested that such an approach was not cost-effective. However, no formal costing exercise was undertaken. Searching results showed that, in the 14 emergency medicine journals indexed by MEDLINE for which hand searching was completed, hand searching led to identification of additional RCTs (primary articles) not found through MEDLINE searching. However, hand searching, although statistically significantly better than MEDLINE searching, failed to identify some of the RCTs found by MEDLINE searching, suggesting that hand searching is not a "gold standard" method and that the dual approach, promoted by the Cochrane Collaboration, may be the optimal approach for journals indexed by MEDLINE.