...
首页> 外文期刊>The American journal of emergency medicine >'Did scoop stretchers in spinal-injured patients study use an appropriate log-roll control group?'.
【24h】

'Did scoop stretchers in spinal-injured patients study use an appropriate log-roll control group?'.

机译:“在研究中,脊髓损伤患者的勺式担架是否使用了合适的对数翻滚对照组?”。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The authors of "Are scoop stretchers suitable for use on spine-injured patients?" are to be applauded for their innovative study and basic study design [1]. That said, the description of the methodology omitted an important detail regarding whether a specific variation of the log-roll maneuver was used in the control group, and if the log roll was standardized, which technique was used. This is not a trivial point because a prior study showed that spinal mobility varies between different log-roll techniques, as defined by the positioning of the patient's arms [2]. Although not stressed in the provider manual, based on these differences, the Advanced Trauma Life Support program started recommending the "arms at side" technique in the Advanced Trauma Life Support Instructor Manual nearly 20 years ago [3]. Unfortunately, the relative lack of emphasis in provider publications has precluded effective standardization to the "arms at side" log roll, leading to log roll policies that are widely divergent or nonexistent.
机译:“铲式担架是否适合脊椎受伤患者使用?”的作者。因其创新性学习和基础学习设计而受到赞扬[1]。就是说,方法的描述省略了关于在对照组中是否使用了原木滚动操作的特定变化,以及如果原木滚动是标准化的,使用了哪种技术的重要细节。这不是一个简单的问题,因为先前的研究表明,根据患者手臂的位置定义,不同的滚转技术之间的脊柱活动度有所不同[2]。尽管在提供者手册中没有特别强调,但基于这些差异,高级创伤生命支持计划在近20年前开始在“高级创伤生命支持讲师手册”中推荐“侧面武器”技术。不幸的是,提供者出版物中相对缺乏重点,已经无法有效地对“侧臂”日志记录进行标准化,从而导致日志记录策略存在很大差异或根本不存在。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号