Expert consensus on the evaluation and diagnosis of combat injuries of the Chinese People's Liberation Army

2022 Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Care

INTRODUCTION

Multiple national organizations and federal agencies have promoted the development, implementation, and evaluation of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) for prehospital care. Previous efforts have identified opportunities to improve the quality of prehospital guidelines and highlighted the value of high-quality EBGs to inform initial certification and continued competency activities for EMS personnel.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to perform a systematic review of prehospital guidelines published from January 2018 to April 2021, evaluate guideline quality, and identify top-scoring guidelines to facilitate dissemination and educational activities for EMS personnel.

METHODS

We searched the literature in Ovid Medline and EMBASE from January 2018 to April 2021, excluding guidelines identified in a prior systematic review. Publications were retained if they were relevant to prehospital care, based on organized reviews of the literature, and focused on providing recommendations for clinical care or operations. Included guidelines were appraised to identify if they met the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria for high-quality guidelines and scored across the six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

RESULTS

We identified 75 guidelines addressing a variety of clinical and operational aspects of EMS medicine. About half (n = 39, 52%) addressed time/life-critical conditions and 33 (44%) contained recommendations relevant to non-clinical/operational topics. Fewer than half (n = 35, 47%) were based on systematic reviews of the literature. Nearly one-third (n = 24, 32%) met all NAM criteria for clinical practice guidelines. Only 27 (38%) guidelines scored an average of >75% across AGREE II domains, with content relevant to guideline implementation most commonly missing.

CONCLUSIONS

This interval systematic review of prehospital EBGs identified many new guidelines relevant to prehospital care; more than all guidelines reported in a prior systematic review. Our review reveals important gaps in the quality of guideline development and the content in their publications, evidenced by the low proportion of guidelines meeting NAM criteria and the scores across AGREE II domains. Efforts to increase guideline dissemination, implementation, and related education may be best focused around the highest quality guidelines identified in this review.

Chinese expert consensus on the treatment of modern combat-related spinal injuries

The battlefield treatments of spinal and spinal cord injury vary from civilian settings. However, there is no unified battlefield treatment guidelines for spine trauma in PLA. An expert consensus is reached, based on spine trauma epidemiology and the concepts of battlefield treatment combined with the existing levels of military medical care in modern warfare. Since the specialized treatment for spine trauma are no significant difference between civilian settings and modern war, the first aid, emergency treatment and early treatment of spine trauma are introduced separately in three levels in this consensus. In Level I facilities, the fast and accurate evaluation of spine trauma followed by fixation and stabilization are recommended during the first-aid stage. Re-evaluation, further treatment for possible hemorrhagic shock, dyspnea and infection are recommended at Level II facilities. At Level III facilities, it is recommended to strengthen the intensive care and the prevention of urinary system and lung infection for the wounded with severe spinal injury, however, spinal surgery is not recommended in a battlefield hospital. The grading standard for evidence evaluation and recommendation was used to reach this expert consensus.

Chinese expert consensus on echelons treatment of thoracic injury in modern warfare

The emergency treatment of thoracic injuries varies of general conditions and modern warfare. However, there are no unified battlefield treatment guidelines for thoracic injuries in the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA). An expert consensus has been reached based on the epidemiology of thoracic injuries and the concept of battlefield treatment combined with the existing levels of military medical care in modern warfare. Since there are no differences in the specialized treatment for thoracic injuries between general conditions and modern warfare, first aid, emergency treatment, and early treatment of thoracic injuries are introduced separately in three levels in this consensus. At Level I facilities, tension pneumothorax and open pneumothorax are recommended for initial assessment during the first aid stage. Re-evaluation and further treatment for hemothorax, flail chest, and pericardial tamponade are recommended at Level II facilities. At Level III facilities, simple surgical operations such as emergency thoracotomy and debridement surgery for open pneumothorax are recommended. The grading standard for evidence evaluation and recommendation was used to reach this expert consensus.

Chinese expert consensus on echelons treatment of pelvic fractures in modern war

The characteristics and treatment of pelvic fractures vary between general conditions and modern war. An expert consensus has been reached based on pelvic injury epidemiology and the concepts of battlefield treatment combined with the existing levels of military medical care in modern warfare. According to this consensus, first aid, emergency treatment and early treatment of pelvic fractures are introduced in three separate levels. In Level I facilities, simple triage and rapid treatment following the principles of advanced trauma life support are recommended to evaluate combat casualties during the first-aid stage. Re-evaluation, further immobilization and fixation, and hemostasis are recommended at Level II facilities. At Level III facilities, the main components of damage control surgery are recommended, including comprehensive hemostasis, a proper resuscitation strategy, the treatment of concurrent visceral and blood vessel damage, and battlefield intensive care. The grading standard for evidence evaluation and recommendation was used to reach this expert consensus.