David Schoenfeld MD , Caroline E. Thomas , Michael P. McCartin MD, NRP , Ira J. Blumen MD , Samuel M. Galvagno Jr DO, PhD, MS , Stephen H. Thomas MD, MPH
{"title":"旋翼空中医疗运输的自然实验结果研究:对 1970 年至 2022 年期间直升机使用前后和未使用前后的出版物进行系统回顾和元分析","authors":"David Schoenfeld MD , Caroline E. Thomas , Michael P. McCartin MD, NRP , Ira J. Blumen MD , Samuel M. Galvagno Jr DO, PhD, MS , Stephen H. Thomas MD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.amj.2023.11.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span><span>Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) is widely used for prehospital and interfacility transport, but there is a paucity of HEMS outcomes data from studies using </span>randomized controlled trial designs. In the </span>absence of robust randomized controlled trial evidence, judgments regarding HEMS potential benefit must be informed by observational data. Within the study design set of observational analyses, the natural experiment (NE) is notable for its high potential methodologic quality; NE designs are occasionally denoted “quasi-experimental.” The aim of this study is to examine all NE outcomes studies in the HEMS literature and to discern what lessons can be learned from these potentially high-quality observational data.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>HEMS NE studies were identified during the development of a new HEMS Outcomes Assessment Research Database (HOARD). HOARD was constructed using a broad-ranging search of published and gray literature resources (eg, PubMed, Embase<span>, and Google Scholar) that used variations of the terms “helicopter EMS,” “air ambulance,” and “air medical transport.” Among the 221 studies ultimately included in HOARD, 16 NE publications describing 13 sets of observational data comprising myriad diagnostic groups were identified. Of these 16 HEMS NEs, 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes were used in a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis was also performed of 4 HEMS NE studies.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Although the disparity of studies (in terms of both case mix and end points) precluded the generation of a pooled effect estimate of an adjusted mortality benefit of HEMs versus ground emergency medical services, HEMS was found to be associated with outcomes improvement in 8 of the 13 cohorts.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The weight of the NE evidence supports a conclusion of some form of HEMS-mediated outcomes improvement in a variety of patient types. Meta-analysis of 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes generated a model with acceptable heterogeneity (<em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 43%, Q test: <em>P</em> = .16), which significantly (<em>P</em> < .01) favored HEMS use with a pooled HEMS survival odd ratio estimate of 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.22).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35737,"journal":{"name":"Air Medical Journal","volume":"43 2","pages":"Pages 124-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Natural Experiment Outcomes Studies in Rotor Wing Air Medical Transport: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Before-and-After and Helicopter-Unavailable Publications From 1970 to 2022\",\"authors\":\"David Schoenfeld MD , Caroline E. Thomas , Michael P. McCartin MD, NRP , Ira J. Blumen MD , Samuel M. Galvagno Jr DO, PhD, MS , Stephen H. Thomas MD, MPH\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.amj.2023.11.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span><span>Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) is widely used for prehospital and interfacility transport, but there is a paucity of HEMS outcomes data from studies using </span>randomized controlled trial designs. In the </span>absence of robust randomized controlled trial evidence, judgments regarding HEMS potential benefit must be informed by observational data. Within the study design set of observational analyses, the natural experiment (NE) is notable for its high potential methodologic quality; NE designs are occasionally denoted “quasi-experimental.” The aim of this study is to examine all NE outcomes studies in the HEMS literature and to discern what lessons can be learned from these potentially high-quality observational data.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>HEMS NE studies were identified during the development of a new HEMS Outcomes Assessment Research Database (HOARD). HOARD was constructed using a broad-ranging search of published and gray literature resources (eg, PubMed, Embase<span>, and Google Scholar) that used variations of the terms “helicopter EMS,” “air ambulance,” and “air medical transport.” Among the 221 studies ultimately included in HOARD, 16 NE publications describing 13 sets of observational data comprising myriad diagnostic groups were identified. Of these 16 HEMS NEs, 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes were used in a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis was also performed of 4 HEMS NE studies.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Although the disparity of studies (in terms of both case mix and end points) precluded the generation of a pooled effect estimate of an adjusted mortality benefit of HEMs versus ground emergency medical services, HEMS was found to be associated with outcomes improvement in 8 of the 13 cohorts.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The weight of the NE evidence supports a conclusion of some form of HEMS-mediated outcomes improvement in a variety of patient types. Meta-analysis of 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes generated a model with acceptable heterogeneity (<em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 43%, Q test: <em>P</em> = .16), which significantly (<em>P</em> < .01) favored HEMS use with a pooled HEMS survival odd ratio estimate of 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.22).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Air Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"43 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 124-132\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Air Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067991X23002614\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Air Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067991X23002614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的直升机急救医疗服务(HEMS)被广泛用于院前和医院间转运,但采用随机对照试验设计的研究却缺乏直升机急救医疗服务的结果数据。在缺乏可靠的随机对照试验证据的情况下,有关急救医疗服务潜在益处的判断必须以观察数据为依据。在观察分析的研究设计中,自然实验(NE)因其潜在的高方法学质量而引人注目;自然实验设计有时也被称为 "准实验"。本研究的目的是检查所有 HEMS 文献中的自然实验结果研究,并找出从这些潜在的高质量观察数据中可以吸取的经验教训。HOARD 是通过对已发表和灰色文献资源(如 PubMed、Embase 和 Google Scholar)进行广泛搜索而建立的,搜索时使用了 "直升机急救服务"、"空中救护 "和 "空中医疗运送 "等不同术语。在最终纳入 HOARD 的 221 项研究中,确定了 16 篇 NE 出版物,其中描述了 13 组观察数据,包括各种诊断组。在这 16 项急救服务 NE 中,有 4 项评估创伤结果的急救服务 NE 研究被用于荟萃分析。结果虽然研究的差异(在病例组合和终点方面)导致无法得出急救医疗服务与地面急救医疗服务相比的调整后死亡率获益的集合效应估计值,但在 13 个队列中的 8 个队列中发现急救医疗服务与预后改善相关。对 4 项评估创伤结果的近地急救服务研究进行的 Meta 分析建立了一个异质性尚可接受的模型(I2 = 43%,Q 检验:P = .16),该模型显著(P < .01)支持使用近地急救服务,汇总的近地急救服务存活奇异比估计值为 1.66(95% 置信区间,1.23-2.22)。
Natural Experiment Outcomes Studies in Rotor Wing Air Medical Transport: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Before-and-After and Helicopter-Unavailable Publications From 1970 to 2022
Objective
Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) is widely used for prehospital and interfacility transport, but there is a paucity of HEMS outcomes data from studies using randomized controlled trial designs. In the absence of robust randomized controlled trial evidence, judgments regarding HEMS potential benefit must be informed by observational data. Within the study design set of observational analyses, the natural experiment (NE) is notable for its high potential methodologic quality; NE designs are occasionally denoted “quasi-experimental.” The aim of this study is to examine all NE outcomes studies in the HEMS literature and to discern what lessons can be learned from these potentially high-quality observational data.
Methods
HEMS NE studies were identified during the development of a new HEMS Outcomes Assessment Research Database (HOARD). HOARD was constructed using a broad-ranging search of published and gray literature resources (eg, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar) that used variations of the terms “helicopter EMS,” “air ambulance,” and “air medical transport.” Among the 221 studies ultimately included in HOARD, 16 NE publications describing 13 sets of observational data comprising myriad diagnostic groups were identified. Of these 16 HEMS NEs, 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes were used in a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis was also performed of 4 HEMS NE studies.
Results
Although the disparity of studies (in terms of both case mix and end points) precluded the generation of a pooled effect estimate of an adjusted mortality benefit of HEMs versus ground emergency medical services, HEMS was found to be associated with outcomes improvement in 8 of the 13 cohorts.
Conclusion
The weight of the NE evidence supports a conclusion of some form of HEMS-mediated outcomes improvement in a variety of patient types. Meta-analysis of 4 HEMS NE studies assessing trauma outcomes generated a model with acceptable heterogeneity (I2 = 43%, Q test: P = .16), which significantly (P < .01) favored HEMS use with a pooled HEMS survival odd ratio estimate of 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.22).
期刊介绍:
Air Medical Journal is the official journal of the five leading air medical transport associations in the United States. AMJ is the premier provider of information for the medical transport industry, addressing the unique concerns of medical transport physicians, nurses, pilots, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, communication specialists, and program administrators. The journal contains practical how-to articles, debates on controversial industry issues, legislative updates, case studies, and peer-reviewed original research articles covering all aspects of the medical transport profession.