Which intraosseous device is best for the prehospital setting?

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialOtherpeer-review

Abstract

A short cut review was carried out to establish which intraosseous device is best for use in the prehospital environment. A total of 2100 papers were found using the reported search, of which 2 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results, and study weaknesses of these best papers are tabulated. The clinical bottom line is that traditional manual intraosseous infusion devices have better success rates and faster insertion times compared with semi-automatic intraosseous infusion devices in the prehospital setting.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to) 717-718
Number of pages2
JournalEmergency Medicine Journal
Volume28
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2011

Cite this

@article{185dffa2f95145a4a4fa82ab51b39ed7,
title = "Which intraosseous device is best for the prehospital setting?",
abstract = "A short cut review was carried out to establish which intraosseous device is best for use in the prehospital environment. A total of 2100 papers were found using the reported search, of which 2 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results, and study weaknesses of these best papers are tabulated. The clinical bottom line is that traditional manual intraosseous infusion devices have better success rates and faster insertion times compared with semi-automatic intraosseous infusion devices in the prehospital setting.",
author = "Alexander Olaussen and Williams, {Brett Anthony}",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1136/emj.2010.108381",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "717--718",
journal = "Emergency Medicine Journal",
issn = "1472-0205",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group Ltd",
number = "8",

}

Which intraosseous device is best for the prehospital setting? / Olaussen, Alexander; Williams, Brett Anthony.

In: Emergency Medicine Journal, Vol. 28, No. 8, 08.2011, p. 717-718.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialOtherpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Which intraosseous device is best for the prehospital setting?

AU - Olaussen, Alexander

AU - Williams, Brett Anthony

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - A short cut review was carried out to establish which intraosseous device is best for use in the prehospital environment. A total of 2100 papers were found using the reported search, of which 2 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results, and study weaknesses of these best papers are tabulated. The clinical bottom line is that traditional manual intraosseous infusion devices have better success rates and faster insertion times compared with semi-automatic intraosseous infusion devices in the prehospital setting.

AB - A short cut review was carried out to establish which intraosseous device is best for use in the prehospital environment. A total of 2100 papers were found using the reported search, of which 2 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results, and study weaknesses of these best papers are tabulated. The clinical bottom line is that traditional manual intraosseous infusion devices have better success rates and faster insertion times compared with semi-automatic intraosseous infusion devices in the prehospital setting.

U2 - 10.1136/emj.2010.108381

DO - 10.1136/emj.2010.108381

M3 - Editorial

VL - 28

SP - 717

EP - 718

JO - Emergency Medicine Journal

JF - Emergency Medicine Journal

SN - 1472-0205

IS - 8

ER -