Sethi D, Kwan I, Kelly A M, Roberts I, Bunn F
Health Policy Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK, WC1E 7HT.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(2):CD003109. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003109.
There is an increasing global burden of disease from injuries. Models of trauma care initially developed in high-income countries are also being adopted in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Amongst these ambulance crews with Advanced Life Support (ALS) training are being promoted in LMIC as a strategy for improving outcomes for victims of trauma. However there is controversy as to the effectiveness of this health service intervention, and the evidence has yet to be rigorously appraised.
To quantify the effectiveness of ambulance crews with ALS training versus crews with any other level of training in reducing mortality and morbidity in trauma patients.
We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (CCTR), the specialised register of the Cochrane Injuries Group, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and the National Research Register. We checked references of background papers and contacted authors to identify additional published or unpublished data.
Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies comparing effectiveness of ambulance crews with ALS training versus crews with any other levels of training in reducing mortality and morbidity in trauma patients. Studies which compared crews staffed by physicians versus others were excluded.
Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria to trial reports for inclusion and extracted data.
We found one randomised controlled trial, which included 16 trauma cases. However, outcome data were added to the main non-randomised cohort in the analysis, and data on these 16 cases are not yet available.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of evidence of the effectiveness of advanced life support, strong argument could be made that it should not be promoted outside the context of a properly concealed and otherwise rigorously conducted randomised controlled trial.
全球伤害疾病负担日益加重。最初在高收入国家开发的创伤护理模式也在低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)得到采用。其中,在LMIC推广对救护人员进行高级生命支持(ALS)培训,作为改善创伤受害者治疗效果的一项策略。然而,对于这项卫生服务干预措施的有效性存在争议,相关证据尚未得到严格评估。
量化接受ALS培训的救护人员与接受其他任何培训水平的救护人员相比,在降低创伤患者死亡率和发病率方面的有效性。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验注册库(CCTR)、Cochrane伤害小组的专门注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、PubMed和国家研究注册库。我们查阅了背景论文的参考文献,并联系作者以识别其他已发表或未发表的数据。
比较接受ALS培训的救护人员与接受其他任何培训水平的救护人员在降低创伤患者死亡率和发病率方面有效性的随机对照试验、半随机对照试验和前后对照研究。比较由医生配备人员的救护小组与其他小组的研究被排除。
两名综述作者独立对试验报告应用纳入标准以确定是否纳入,并提取数据。
我们发现一项随机对照试验,其中包括16例创伤病例。然而,在分析中,结局数据被添加到主要的非随机队列中,这16例病例的数据尚不可用。
在缺乏高级生命支持有效性证据的情况下,可以有力地论证,在没有适当隐蔽且严格进行的随机对照试验的背景下,不应推广高级生命支持。