cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7334703
title: SciExpeM - 10.5281/zenodo.7334703

description: Shrestha, Krishna Prasad, 0000-0001-5672-7354; Lhuillier, Charles, 0000-0003-0390-5641; Barbosa, Amanda Alves, 0000-0002-0828-1164; Brequigny, Pierre; Contino, Francesco, 0000-0002-8341-4350; Mounaïm-Rousselle, Christine, 0000-0001-9619-7001; Seidel, Lars, 0000-0002-4794-0556; Mauss, Fabian - Proceedings Of The Combustion Institute, 2021, (38), 2163-2174
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7334702
title: SciExpeM - 10.5281/zenodo.7334703

description: Shrestha, Krishna Prasad, 0000-0001-5672-7354; Lhuillier, Charles, 0000-0003-0390-5641; Barbosa, Amanda Alves, 0000-0002-0828-1164; Brequigny, Pierre; Contino, Francesco, 0000-0002-8341-4350; Mounaïm-Rousselle, Christine, 0000-0001-9619-7001; Seidel, Lars, 0000-0002-4794-0556; Mauss, Fabian - Proceedings Of The Combustion Institute, 2021, (38), 2163-2174
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12264962
title: Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Care

description: <b>Introduction</b>: Multiple national organizations have identified a need to incorporate more evidence-based medicine in emergency medical services (EMS) through the creation of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs). Tools like the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and criteria outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) have established concrete recommendations for the development of high-quality guidelines. While many guidelines have been created that address topics within EMS medicine, neither the quantity nor quality of prehospital EBGs have been previously reported. <b>Objectives</b>: To perform a systematic review to identify existing EBGs related to prehospital care and evaluate the quality of these guidelines using the AGREE II tool and criteria for clinical guidelines described by the NAM. <b>Methods</b>: We performed a systematic search of the literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMED, Trip, and guidelines.gov, through September 2018. Guideline topics were categorized based on the 2019 Core Content of EMS Medicine. Two independent reviewers screened titles for relevance and then abstracts for essential guideline features. Included guidelines were appraised with the AGREE II tool across 6 domains by 3 independent reviewers and scores averaged. Two additional reviewers determined if each guideline reported the key elements of clinical practice guidelines recommended by the NAM via consensus. <b>Results</b>: We identified 71 guidelines, of which 89% addressed clinical aspects of EMS medicine. Only 9 guidelines scored &gt;75% across AGREE II domains and most (63%) scored between 50 and 75%. Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation) had the highest (79.7%) and domain 5 (Applicability) had the lowest average score across EMS guidelines. Only 38% of EMS guidelines included a reporting of all criteria identified by the NAM for clinical practice guidelines, with elements of a systematic review of the literature most commonly missing. <b>Conclusions</b>: EBGs exist addressing a variety of topics in EMS medicine. This systematic review and appraisal of EMS guidelines identified a wide range in the quality of these guidelines and variable reporting of key elements of clinical guidelines. Future guideline developers should consider established methodological and reporting recommendations to improve the quality of EMS guidelines.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12264962.v1
title: Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Care

description: <b>Introduction</b>: Multiple national organizations have identified a need to incorporate more evidence-based medicine in emergency medical services (EMS) through the creation of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs). Tools like the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and criteria outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) have established concrete recommendations for the development of high-quality guidelines. While many guidelines have been created that address topics within EMS medicine, neither the quantity nor quality of prehospital EBGs have been previously reported. <b>Objectives</b>: To perform a systematic review to identify existing EBGs related to prehospital care and evaluate the quality of these guidelines using the AGREE II tool and criteria for clinical guidelines described by the NAM. <b>Methods</b>: We performed a systematic search of the literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMED, Trip, and guidelines.gov, through September 2018. Guideline topics were categorized based on the 2019 Core Content of EMS Medicine. Two independent reviewers screened titles for relevance and then abstracts for essential guideline features. Included guidelines were appraised with the AGREE II tool across 6 domains by 3 independent reviewers and scores averaged. Two additional reviewers determined if each guideline reported the key elements of clinical practice guidelines recommended by the NAM via consensus. <b>Results</b>: We identified 71 guidelines, of which 89% addressed clinical aspects of EMS medicine. Only 9 guidelines scored &gt;75% across AGREE II domains and most (63%) scored between 50 and 75%. Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation) had the highest (79.7%) and domain 5 (Applicability) had the lowest average score across EMS guidelines. Only 38% of EMS guidelines included a reporting of all criteria identified by the NAM for clinical practice guidelines, with elements of a systematic review of the literature most commonly missing. <b>Conclusions</b>: EBGs exist addressing a variety of topics in EMS medicine. This systematic review and appraisal of EMS guidelines identified a wide range in the quality of these guidelines and variable reporting of key elements of clinical guidelines. Future guideline developers should consider established methodological and reporting recommendations to improve the quality of EMS guidelines.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12026778
title: Control of Severe, Life-Threatening External Bleeding in the Out-of-Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

description: <b>Objective</b> Trauma, with resultant bleeding, is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world; however, the best possible method of bleeding control by immediate responders is unknown. We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of treatment modalities for severe, life-threatening external bleeding in the out-of-hospital first aid setting. <b>Methods:</b> We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions methodology and report results according to PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparative studies and case series investigating adults and children with severe, life-threatening external bleeding who were treated with therapies potentially suitable for first aid providers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence and risk of bias. Outcomes were prioritized by first aid specialists based on importance for patients and decision-makers and included mortality due to bleeding, all-cause mortality, cessation of bleeding, time to cessation of bleeding, a decrease in bleeding, and complications/adverse effects. Results were reported in Evidence Profiles. <b>Results:</b> Of the 1,051 full-text articles screened, 107 were included for analysis including 22,798 patients. The primary methods of bleeding control were tourniquets (<i>n</i> = 49), hemostatic dressings (<i>n</i> = 34), hemostatic devices (<i>n</i> = 14), pressure dressings/bandages/devices (<i>n</i> = 8), pressure points (<i>n</i> = 4), including 2 studies that reported multiple hemorrhage control methods. Overall, certainty of evidence was very low and often relied on indirect evidence and poorly controlled studies. Tourniquets were associated with a decrease in mortality when compared with direct manual pressure. Hemostatic dressings resulted in a shorter time to hemostasis than direct manual pressure using standard dressings. Direct manual compression resulted in a shorter time to hemostasis than pressure dressings/devices. <b>Conclusion:</b> Overall, data regarding the control of life-threatening bleeding is of very low certainty, making it difficult to draw robust conclusions for treatment by immediate responders. While more robust data is needed on first aid treatments of life-threatening bleeding, this systematic review aggregates the most comprehensive to date to help guide recommendations. <b>Key words:</b> bleeding; hemorrhage; tourniquet; hemostatic dressing; direct pressure
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12026778.v2
title: Control of Severe, Life-Threatening External Bleeding in the Out-of-Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

description: <b>Objective</b> Trauma, with resultant bleeding, is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world; however, the best possible method of bleeding control by immediate responders is unknown. We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of treatment modalities for severe, life-threatening external bleeding in the out-of-hospital first aid setting. <b>Methods:</b> We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions methodology and report results according to PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparative studies and case series investigating adults and children with severe, life-threatening external bleeding who were treated with therapies potentially suitable for first aid providers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence and risk of bias. Outcomes were prioritized by first aid specialists based on importance for patients and decision-makers and included mortality due to bleeding, all-cause mortality, cessation of bleeding, time to cessation of bleeding, a decrease in bleeding, and complications/adverse effects. Results were reported in Evidence Profiles. <b>Results:</b> Of the 1,051 full-text articles screened, 107 were included for analysis including 22,798 patients. The primary methods of bleeding control were tourniquets (<i>n</i> = 49), hemostatic dressings (<i>n</i> = 34), hemostatic devices (<i>n</i> = 14), pressure dressings/bandages/devices (<i>n</i> = 8), pressure points (<i>n</i> = 4), including 2 studies that reported multiple hemorrhage control methods. Overall, certainty of evidence was very low and often relied on indirect evidence and poorly controlled studies. Tourniquets were associated with a decrease in mortality when compared with direct manual pressure. Hemostatic dressings resulted in a shorter time to hemostasis than direct manual pressure using standard dressings. Direct manual compression resulted in a shorter time to hemostasis than pressure dressings/devices. <b>Conclusion:</b> Overall, data regarding the control of life-threatening bleeding is of very low certainty, making it difficult to draw robust conclusions for treatment by immediate responders. While more robust data is needed on first aid treatments of life-threatening bleeding, this systematic review aggregates the most comprehensive to date to help guide recommendations. <b>Key words:</b> bleeding; hemorrhage; tourniquet; hemostatic dressing; direct pressure
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12231197
title: Development and Validation of Content Domains for Paramedic Prehospital Performance Assessment: A Focus Group and Delphi Method Approach

description: <b>Background</b> The chaotic and complex nature of delivering patient care in the prehospital setting complicates the provision of real-time formative feedback to paramedic students. Although the use of simulations is widespread in emergency medical services (EMS) education, a high degree of variability precludes consistent performance assessment in EMS. <b>Objectives:</b> The objective of this study was to define and validate key domains required to evaluate paramedic prehospital performance. <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a two-phase study that combined focus group and Delphi methodology. Participants were purposefully selected to attain diverse panels regarding sex, race, ethnicity, professional roles, levels of education, geographical area, and experience as a paramedic and educator. In Phase I, a panel of 11 subject matter experts (SMEs) were tasked with identifying the essential domains to be evaluated in a paramedic performance assessment. In Phase II, another panel of 11 SMEs and a four-round modified Delphi method with 28 paramedic program directors were used to validate the domains identified in Phase I. <b>Results:</b> The first focus group identified and achieved consensus on five domains: (1) effective communication, (2) scene management, (3) patient assessment, (4) patient management, and (5) professional behavior. These domains were validated by the second focus group. The first round of the Delphi process generated 64 content domains, which were reduced to nine unique content domains via thematic analysis. These nine content domains fit well within the broader domains identified by the focus groups with one specific area, critical thinking and reasoning, being listed in two key areas based on the definitions of the focus group domains of patient assessment and patient management. <b>Conclusion:</b> The content domains identified in this study provide EMS educators a theoretical framework for designing the performance assessment of newly trained professionals in the prehospital setting.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12231197.v1
title: Development and Validation of Content Domains for Paramedic Prehospital Performance Assessment: A Focus Group and Delphi Method Approach

description: <b>Background</b> The chaotic and complex nature of delivering patient care in the prehospital setting complicates the provision of real-time formative feedback to paramedic students. Although the use of simulations is widespread in emergency medical services (EMS) education, a high degree of variability precludes consistent performance assessment in EMS. <b>Objectives:</b> The objective of this study was to define and validate key domains required to evaluate paramedic prehospital performance. <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a two-phase study that combined focus group and Delphi methodology. Participants were purposefully selected to attain diverse panels regarding sex, race, ethnicity, professional roles, levels of education, geographical area, and experience as a paramedic and educator. In Phase I, a panel of 11 subject matter experts (SMEs) were tasked with identifying the essential domains to be evaluated in a paramedic performance assessment. In Phase II, another panel of 11 SMEs and a four-round modified Delphi method with 28 paramedic program directors were used to validate the domains identified in Phase I. <b>Results:</b> The first focus group identified and achieved consensus on five domains: (1) effective communication, (2) scene management, (3) patient assessment, (4) patient management, and (5) professional behavior. These domains were validated by the second focus group. The first round of the Delphi process generated 64 content domains, which were reduced to nine unique content domains via thematic analysis. These nine content domains fit well within the broader domains identified by the focus groups with one specific area, critical thinking and reasoning, being listed in two key areas based on the definitions of the focus group domains of patient assessment and patient management. <b>Conclusion:</b> The content domains identified in this study provide EMS educators a theoretical framework for designing the performance assessment of newly trained professionals in the prehospital setting.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12845273
title: Medication Dosing Safety for Pediatric Patients: Recognizing Gaps, Safety Threats, and Best Practices in the Emergency Medical Services Setting. A Position Statement and Resource Document from NAEMSP

description: Millions of patients receive medications in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) setting annually, and dosing safety is critically important. The need for weight-based dosing in pediatric patients and variability in medication concentrations available in the EMS setting may require EMS providers to perform complex calculations to derive the appropriate dose to deliver. These factors can significantly increase the risk for harm when dose calculations are inaccurate or incorrect. We conducted a scoping review of the EMS, interfacility transport and emergency medicine literature regarding pediatric medication dosing safety. A priori, the authors identified four research topics: (1) what are the greatest safety threats that result in significant dosing errors that potentially result in harm to patients, (2) what practices or technologies are known to enhance dosing safety, (3) can data from other settings be extrapolated to the EMS environment to inform dosing safety, and (4) what impact could standardization of medication formularies have on enhancing dosing safety. To address these topics, 17 PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions were developed and a literature search was performed. After applying exclusion criteria, 70 articles were reviewed. The methods for the investigation, findings from these articles and how they inform EMS medication dosing safety are summarized here. This review yielded 11 recommendations to improve safety of medication delivery in the EMS setting. These recommendations are summarized in the National Association of EMS Physicians® position statement: <i>Medication Dosing Safety for Pediatric Patients in Emergency Medical Services</i>.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12845273.v1
title: Medication Dosing Safety for Pediatric Patients: Recognizing Gaps, Safety Threats, and Best Practices in the Emergency Medical Services Setting. A Position Statement and Resource Document from NAEMSP

description: Millions of patients receive medications in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) setting annually, and dosing safety is critically important. The need for weight-based dosing in pediatric patients and variability in medication concentrations available in the EMS setting may require EMS providers to perform complex calculations to derive the appropriate dose to deliver. These factors can significantly increase the risk for harm when dose calculations are inaccurate or incorrect. We conducted a scoping review of the EMS, interfacility transport and emergency medicine literature regarding pediatric medication dosing safety. A priori, the authors identified four research topics: 1) what are the greatest safety threats that result in significant dosing errors that potentially result in harm to patients, 2) what practices or technologies are known to enhance dosing safety, 3) can data from other settings be extrapolated to the EMS environment to inform dosing safety, and 4) what impact could standardization of medication formularies have on enhancing dosing safety. To address these topics, 17 PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions were developed and a literature search was performed. After applying exclusion criteria, 70 articles were reviewed. The methods for the investigation, findings from these articles and how they inform EMS medication dosing safety are summarized here. This review yielded 11 recommendations to improve safety of medication delivery in the EMS setting. These recommendations are summarized in the National Association of EMS Physicians® position statement: <i>Medication Dosing Safety for Pediatric Patients in Emergency Medical Services</i>.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.17130066
title: Asthma biologic trial eligibility and real-world outcomes in the United States

description: To compare the outcomes of real-world patients who would have been eligible for asthma biologics to those who would not have been eligible. We used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (OLDW) to categorize patients into eligible and ineligible groups based on clinical trials (<i>n</i> = 19 trials) used for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. We then compared the change in the number of asthma exacerbations before and after biological initiation between the two groups. The percentage of people who would have been eligible for asthma biologic clinical trials ranged from 0–10.2%. The eligible group had a greater reduction in number of asthma exacerbations compared to the ineligible group based on eligibility criteria from 1 omalizumab trial (1.52, 95% CI 1.25, 1.8 in eligible vs. 0.47, 95% CI 0.43, 0.52 in ineligible) and from 1 dupilumab trial (1.6, 95% CI 0.92, 2.28 in eligible vs. 0.52, 95% CI 0.38, 0.65 ineligible). Notably, 15 of the 19 trials had fewer than 11 eligible people, limiting additional comparisons. Fewer than 1 in 10 people in the United States treated with asthma biologics would have been eligible to participate in the trial for the biologic they used. Where comparisons could be made, trial eligible people have a greater reduction in exacerbations. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2010749 .
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.17130066.v2
title: Asthma biologic trial eligibility and real-world outcomes in the United States

description: To compare the outcomes of real-world patients who would have been eligible for asthma biologics to those who would not have been eligible. We used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (OLDW) to categorize patients into eligible and ineligible groups based on clinical trials (<i>n</i> = 19 trials) used for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. We then compared the change in the number of asthma exacerbations before and after biological initiation between the two groups. The percentage of people who would have been eligible for asthma biologic clinical trials ranged from 0–10.2%. The eligible group had a greater reduction in number of asthma exacerbations compared to the ineligible group based on eligibility criteria from 1 omalizumab trial (1.52, 95% CI 1.25, 1.8 in eligible vs. 0.47, 95% CI 0.43, 0.52 in ineligible) and from 1 dupilumab trial (1.6, 95% CI 0.92, 2.28 in eligible vs. 0.52, 95% CI 0.38, 0.65 ineligible). Notably, 15 of the 19 trials had fewer than 11 eligible people, limiting additional comparisons. Fewer than 1 in 10 people in the United States treated with asthma biologics would have been eligible to participate in the trial for the biologic they used. Where comparisons could be made, trial eligible people have a greater reduction in exacerbations. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2010749 .
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.17130066.v1
title: Asthma biologic trial eligibility and real-world outcomes in the United States

description: To compare the outcomes of real-world patients who would have been eligible for asthma biologics to those who would not have been eligible. We used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (OLDW) to categorize patients into eligible and ineligible groups based on clinical trials (<i>n</i> = 19 trials) used for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. We then compared the change in the number of asthma exacerbations before and after biological initiation between the two groups. The percentage of people who would have been eligible for asthma biologic clinical trials ranged from 0–10.2%. The eligible group had a greater reduction in number of asthma exacerbations compared to the ineligible group based on eligibility criteria from 1 omalizumab trial (1.52, 95% CI 1.25, 1.8 in eligible vs. 0.47, 95% CI 0.43, 0.52 in ineligible) and from 1 dupilumab trial (1.6, 95% CI 0.92, 2.28 in eligible vs. 0.52, 95% CI 0.38, 0.65 ineligible). Notably, 15 of the 19 trials had fewer than 11 eligible people, limiting additional comparisons. Fewer than 1 in 10 people in the United States treated with asthma biologics would have been eligible to participate in the trial for the biologic they used. Where comparisons could be made, trial eligible people have a greater reduction in exacerbations. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2010749 .