Global Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review of the Literature from 2022.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to identify the highest quality global emergency medicine (GEM) research published in 2022. The top articles are compiled in a comprehensive list of all the year's GEM articles and narrative summaries are performed on those included. METHODS: A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify all GEM articles published in 2022 and included a manual supplemental screen of 11 organizational websites for gray literature (GRAY). A team of trained reviewers and editors screened all identified titles and abstracts, based on three case definition categories: disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and emergency medicine development (EMD). Articles meeting these definitions were independently scored by two reviewers using rubrics for original research (OR), review (RE) articles, and GRAY. Articles that scored in the top 5% from each category as well as the overall top 5% of articles were included for narrative summary. RESULTS: The 2022 search identified 58,510 articles in the main review, of which 524 articles screened in for scoring, respectively, 30% and 18% increases from last year. After duplicates were removed, 36 articles were included for narrative summary. The GRAY search identified 7755 articles, of which 33 were scored and one was included for narrative summary. ECRLS remained the largest category (27; 73%), followed by DHR (7; 19%) and EMD (3; 8%). OR articles remained more common than RE articles (64% vs. 36%). CONCLUSIONS: The waning of the COVID-19 pandemic has not affected the continued growth in GEM literature. Articles related to prehospital care, mental health and resilience among patients and health care workers, streamlining pediatric infectious disease care, and disaster preparedness were featured in this year's review. The continued lack of EMD studies despite the global growth of GEM highlights a need for more scholarly dissemination of best practices.

Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2021.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to identify the most important and impactful peer-reviewed global emergency medicine (GEM) articles published in 2021. The top articles are summarized in brief narratives and accompanied by a comprehensive list of all identified articles that address the topic during the year to serve as a reference for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers. METHODS: A systematic PubMed search was carried out to identify all GEM articles published in 2021. Title and abstract screening was performed by trained reviewers and editors to identify articles in one of three categories based on predefined criteria: disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and emergency medicine development (EMD). Included articles were each scored by two reviewers using established rubrics for original (OR) and review (RE) articles. The top 5% of articles overall and the top 5% of articles from each category (DHR, ECRLS, EMD, OR, and RE) were included for narrative summary. RESULTS: The 2021 search identified 44,839 articles, of which 444 articles screened in for scoring, 25% and 22% increases from 2020, respectively. After removal of duplicates, 23 articles were included for narrative summary. ECRLS constituted the largest category (n = 16, 70%), followed by EMD (n = 4, 17%) and DHR (n = 3, 13%). The majority of top articles were OR (n = 14, 61%) compared to RE (n = 9, 39%). CONCLUSIONS: The GEM peer-reviewed literature continued to grow at a fast rate in 2021, reflecting the continued expansion and maturation of this subspecialty of emergency medicine. Few high-quality articles focused on DHR and EMD, suggesting a need for further efforts in those fields. Future efforts should focus on improving the diversity of GEM research and equitable representation.

Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2020.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to identify, screen, highlight, review, and summarize some of the most rigorously conducted and impactful original research (OR) and review articles (RE) in global emergency medicine (EM) published in 2020 in the peer-reviewed and gray literature. METHODS: A broad systematic search of peer-reviewed publications related to global EM indexed on PubMed and in the gray literature was conducted. The titles and abstracts of the articles on this list were screened by members of the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) Group to identify those that met our criteria of OR or RE in the domains of disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and EM development. Those articles that met these screening criteria were then scored using one of three scoring templates appropriate to the article type. Those articles that scored in the top 5% then underwent in-depth narrative summarization. RESULTS: The 2020 GEMLR search initially identified 35,970 articles, more than 50% more than last year's search. From these, 364 were scored based on their full text. Nearly three-fourths of the scored articles constituted OR, of which nearly three-fourths employed quantitative research methods. Nearly 10% of the articles identified this year were directly related to COVID-19. Research involving ECRLS again constituted most of the articles in this year's review, accounting for more than 60% of the literature scored. A total of 20 articles underwent in-depth narrative critiques. CONCLUSIONS: The number of studies relevant to global EM identified by our search was very similar to that of last year. Revisions to our methodology to identify a broader range of research were successful in identifying more qualitative research and studies related to DHR. The number of COVID-19-related articles is likely to continue to increase in subsequent years.

Relationship of the distance between non-PCI hospitals and primary PCI centers, mode of transport, and reperfusion time among ground and air interhospital transfers using NCDR's ACTION Registry-GWTG: a report from the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline Program.

BACKGROUND: ST-segment myocardial infarction patients frequently present to non-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) hospitals and require interhospital transfer for primary PCI. The effect of distance and mode of transport to the PCI center and the frequency that recommended primary PCI times are met are not clear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the ACTION Registry(®)-GWTG™ were used to determine the distance between the Non-PCI and PCI center and first door time to balloon time based on transfer mode (ground and air) for patients having interhospital transfer for primary PCI. From July 1, 2008, to December 31, 2012, 17 052 ST-segment myocardial infarction patients were transferred to 413 PCI hospitals. The median distance from the non-PCI hospital to the primary PCI center was 31.9 miles (Q1, Q3: 19.1, 47.9; ground 25.2 miles; air 43.9 miles; P<0.001). At distances <40 miles, ground transport was the primary transport method, whereas at distances >40 miles air transport predominanted. Median first door time to balloon time time for patients transferred for primary PCI was 118 minutes (Q1, Q3: 95 152), with time for patients transported by air significantly longer (median 124 versus 113 minutes; respectively, P<0.001) than for patients transported by ground. Fifty-three percent of patients had a first door time to balloon time ≤120 minutes, with only 20% ≤90 minutes. A first door time to balloon time ≤120 minutes was more likely in ground than in air transport patients (57.0% versus 45.6%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interhospital transfer for primary PCI is associated with prolonged reperfusion times. These delays should prompt increased consideration of fibrinolytic therapy, emergency medical services hospital bypass protocols, and improved systems of care for ST-segment myocardial infarction patients requiring transfer.