Effectiveness of local cold application on skin burns and pain after transthoracic cardioversion

Yava, Ayla; Koyuncu, Aynur; Tosun, Nuran; Kılıç, Selim

doi:10.1136/emj.2010.098053

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the observational studies was withdrawn from publication due to inconsistencies in data and was, therefore, withdrawn from the evidence review, leaving a total of 5 studies for inclusion. [161][162][163][164][165] For the critical outcome of pain, 1 RCT and 1 observational study were found. Low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias) from a single RCT 161 with 24 subjects showed no benefit in reduction of tactile pain measurements in cooled versus noncooled first-degree burns (MD undeterminable).…”

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias) from a single RCT 161 with 24 subjects showed no difference in the amount of erythema between cooled and noncooled burns (MD undeterminable). Low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias) from a prospective observational study 162 with 48 patients showed a reduction in the number and depth of burns in those with cooling versus those without (12.5% versus 83.3%) (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.44). Very-low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness) from a retrospective observational study 163 with 695 patients reported an association between superficial burns and cooling and between deep burns and a lack of cooling (33.2% versus 48.5%) (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85).…”

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias) from a single RCT 161 with 24 subjects showed no benefit in reduction of tactile pain measurements in cooled versus noncooled first-degree burns (MD undeterminable). Low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias) from a prospective observational study 162 with 48 subjects showed no benefit in reduction of pain at 2, 4, and 24 hours in patients with active cooling of burns caused by electric cardioversion versus those without cooling (MD undeterminable).For the important outcome of depth of burn, 1 RCT and 3 observational studies were found. Low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias) from a single RCT 161 with 24 subjects showed no difference in the amount of erythema between cooled and noncooled burns (MD undeterminable).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Part 9: First Aid

Em¹,

Da²,

Buck³

et al. 2015

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and curriculum development, and a specialist in first aid evidence evaluation methodology and guideline development.The task force convened in June 2013 to review the topics and questions that were evaluated in 2005 and 2010, past research questions formulated in the PICO style (population, intervention, comparator, outcomes) that were never completed, and the new questions that had been submitted since 2010 to the task force, and a priority list created. Topics were reviewed for areas of controversy, known additional new science, and subject matter not previously evaluated. Task force members created a priority list for review, and the top 10 priority-ranked PICO questions were assigned. After the successful commencement of the workflow, the task force co-chairs added a further 12 PICO questions, including 5 new questions, 1 derived question, and 6 that had been previously reviewed. Selected PICO questions that had been previously reviewed were, in some cases, reworded to facilitate literature searches, and outcomes were decided upon by group consensus.Evidence reviewers were recruited through a call for volunteers distributed by ILCOR to stakeholder organizations around the world. More than 30 individual reviewers were assigned to topics, usually by preference or expertise, but avoiding any direct conflicts of interest. In general, 2 evidence reviewers were assigned to each PICO, supervised by a member of the task force designated as the task force question owner. Evidence reviewers included physicians with diverse specialties including emergency medicine, EMS, wilderness medicine, critical care, cardiology, occupational medicine, toxicology, anesthesia, pediatric emergency medicine, public health, and epidemiology, as well as paramedics, nurse practitioners and first aid education specialists with experience in guideline and curriculum development, and professional evidence evaluation and methodology experts. The Evidence Evaluation ProcessFor the 2015 international evidence evaluation process, the AHA developed a new Web-based information and documentation platform, the Systematic Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS), to support the ILCOR systematic reviews and to capture the data in reusable formats. This Webbased system facilitated structured reviews in a consistent format that would support the ultimate development of science summaries and evidence-based treatment recommendations.Each task force performed a detailed systematic review based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 1 using the methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group.2 After identifying and prioritizing the PICO questions to be addressed, 3 and with the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library).By using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were screened for further evalu...

show abstract

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Part 9: First Aid

Em¹,

Da²,

Buck³

et al. 2015

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(c) Thermal burns: Cooling burns with cool or tepid potable water as soon as possible for at least ten minutes can reduce the risk and depth of injury. (80,81) Avoid applying ice directly to a burn, as it can cause tissue ischaemia. Remove any constricting objects on the person such as watches, rings, bracelets and belts.…”

Section: Medicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for Bystander First Aid 2016

Pek¹

2017

smedj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiac life support is a form of fi rst aid for cardiac emergencies. However, research and evidence in this fi eld is lacking compared with other forms of fi rst aid. Having identifi ed the common emergencies that are encountered in the hospital, based on the available evidence, we have put together what could be an evidence-based approach to the fi rst aid management of some of these common emergencies, viz. breathlessness, chest pain, allergies, stroke, heat injury, poisoning, unconsciousness, seizures, and trauma situations such as bleeding, wounds, contusions, head injury, burns and fractures. Educating the public is the key to developing a fi rst responder bystander. These guidelines could become the basis for training of the public.

show abstract