Systematic Review Methodology for the Fatigue in Emergency Medical Services Project

摘要

Background: Guidance for managing fatigue in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) setting is limited. The Fatigue in EMS Project sought to complete multiple systematic reviews guided by seven explicit research questions, assemble the best available evidence, and rate the quality of that evidence for purposes of producing an Evidence Based Guideline (EBG) for fatigue risk management in EMS operations. Methods: We completed seven systematic reviews that involved searches of six databases for literature relevant to seven research questions. These questions were developed a priori by an expert panel and framed in the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) format and pre-registered with PROSPERO. Our target population was defined as persons 18years of age and older classified as EMS personnel or similar shift worker groups. A panel of experts selected outcomes for each PICO question as prescribed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We pooled findings, stratified by study design (experimental vs. observational) and presented results of each systematic review in narrative and quantitative form. We used meta-analyses of select outcomes to generate pooled effects. We used the GRADE methodology and the GRADEpro software to designate a quality of evidence rating for each outcome. Results: We present the results for each systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). More than 38,000 records were screened across seven systematic reviews. The median, minimum, and maximum inter-rater agreements (Kappa) between screeners for our seven systematic reviews were 0.66, 0.49, and 0.88, respectively. The median, minimum, and maximum number of records retained for the seven systematic reviews was 13, 1, and 100, respectively. We present key findings in GRADE Evidence Profile Tables in separate publications for each systematic review. Conclusions: We describe a protocol for conducting multiple, simultaneous systematic reviews connected to fatigue with the goal of creating an EBG for fatigue risk management in the EMS setting. Our approach may be informative to others challenged with the creation of EBGs that address multiple, inter-related systematic reviews with overlapping outcomes.