Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
-
Comparative Study
Comparing National Institutes of Health funding of emergency medicine to four medical specialties.
The purpose of this study was to compare National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding received in 2008 by emergency medicine (EM) to the specialties of internal medicine, pediatrics, anesthesiology, and family medicine. The hypothesis was that EM would receive fewer NIH awards and less funding dollars per active physician and per medical school faculty member compared to the other four specialties. ⋯ Compared to internal medicine, pediatrics, anesthesiology, and family medicine, EM received the least amount of NIH support per active faculty member and ranked next to last for NIH support by active physician. Given the many benefits of research both for the specialty and for society, EM needs to continue to develop and support an adequate cohort of independent investigators.
-
Few tools exist that provide objective accurate prediction of short-term mortality risk in patients presenting with acute heart failure (AHF). The purpose was to describe the accuracy of several biomarkers for predicting short-term death rates in patients diagnosed with AHF in the emergency department (ED). ⋯ MR-proADM and copeptin, alone or in combination, may provide superior short-term mortality prediction compared to natriuretic peptides and troponin. Presented results are explorative due to the limited number of events, but validation in larger trials seems promising.
-
Self-reported financial conflicts of interest during scientific presentations in emergency medicine.
This study was a review of the scientific abstracts presented at a national conference for the required conflict of interest (COI) disclosure both before the meeting and during presentation. ⋯ This review of presentations at a national meeting found a lack of compliance with printed guidelines for COI disclosure during scientific presentation. Efforts to increase uniformity and clarity may result in increased compliance.
-
The objectives were to conduct a comprehensive, systematic review of the literature for risk adjustment measures (RAMs) and outcome measures (OMs) for prehospital trauma research and to use a structured expert panel process to recommend measures for use in future emergency medical services (EMS) trauma outcomes research. ⋯ Using a previously published process, a structured literature review, and consensus expert panel opinion, only the GCS can currently be firmly recommended as a specific RAM or OM for prehospital trauma research (along with core measures that have already been established and published). This effort highlights the paucity of reliable, validated RAMs and OMs currently available for outcomes research in the prehospital setting and hopefully will encourage additional, methodologically sound evaluations of the promising, Category 2 RAMs and OMs, as well as the development of new measures.