You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 10
  • Effects of advanced life support versus basic life support on the mortality rates of patients with trauma in prehospital settings: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Emergency medicine
Protocol
Effects of advanced life support versus basic life support on the mortality rates of patients with trauma in prehospital settings: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Yutaka Kondo1,
  2. Tatsuma Fukuda1,
  3. Ryo Uchimido2,
  4. Toru Hifumi3,
  5. Kei Hayashida4
  1. 1 Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan
  2. 2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Mie Prefectural Shima Hospital, Mie, Japan
  3. 3 Emergency Medical Center, Kagawa University Hospital, Kagawa, Japan
  4. 4 Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
  1. Correspondence to Dr. Yutaka Kondo; kondokondou2000{at}yahoo.co.jp

Abstract

Introduction Advanced life support (ALS) is thought to be associated with improved survival in prehospital trauma care when compared with basic life support (BLS). However, evidence on the benefits of prehospital ALS for patients with trauma is controversial. Therefore, we aim to clarify if ALS improves mortality in patients with trauma when compared with BLS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the recent literature.

Methods and analysis We will perform searches in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published observational studies, controlled before-and-after studies, randomised controlled trials and other controlled trials conducted in humans and published until March 2017. We will screen search results, assess study selection, extract data and assess the risk of bias in duplicate; disagreements will be resolved through discussions. Data from clinically homogeneous studies will be pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis, heterogeneity of effects will be assessed using the χ2 test of homogeneity, and any observed heterogeneity will be quantified using the I2 statistic. Last, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to rate the quality of the evidence.

Ethics and dissemination Our study does not require ethical approval as it is based on findings of previously published articles. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, presentations at relevant conferences and publications for patient information.

Trial registration number PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registration number CRD42017054389.

  • trauma
  • advanced life support
  • basic life support
  • first aid
  • resuscitation

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016912

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors YK and TF conceived the idea for this systematic review. YK, TF, RU, TH and KH developed the methodology. The manuscript was drafted by YK. TF, RU, TH and KH supported in revising the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding This study was supportedby grant from JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K20394 (Y.K.).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.