Landmark EM papers

[erasthrowaway328382382]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hey guys, as nerdy as this sounds, I would like to get my feet wet in EM research by reading some of the landmark papers or summaries of them. Other than the Colorado Compendium (which is a little dated at this point), does anyone have any recommendations of resources? Thanks in advance.

 

[da8s0859q]

"ERAS throwaway" -- where are you in the path to EM? Presumably a med student waiting to match?

 

[erasthrowaway328382382]

haha, yes. Its a stupid username.

 

[filhodeinferno]

Hey guys, as nerdy as this sounds, I would like to get my feet wet in EM research by reading some of the landmark papers or summaries of them. Other than the Colorado Compendium (which is a little dated at this point), does anyone have any recommendations of resources? Thanks in advance.

RIVERS trial. Made us serious about sepsis, which kills a lot of people.

 

[gman33]

One thing I did was read chapter's of Rosen's.
If you do this online and your institution has a good library, you can open it up so the references are linked directly to the articles.
As I was reading a chapter on a given topic, I would read a handful of papers on that same topic.
It's interesting to read what the text recommends and then review the literature to support that recommendation.
Many times the recommendation is based on questionable or even non-existent evidence.

I found this more helpful than just reading a bunch of random articles.

Another good start would be to just pick a journal and read it every month.
You don't have to read every article, but at least skim all the topics and carefully read the handful of interest.
As you read those articles, look at the references and read a few of those articles.

There are some published lists of landmark papers.
Some (or many) of these will no longer be the most up to date information on the topic.

For example, the Rivers paper mentioned above was truly a game changer, and it did a lot to improve the care of patients.
But the latest research would show that most of the recommendations of that paper do not improve patient outcomes.
I don't think it is the best use of your educational time to read outdated papers.
Others will disagree as it gives you a framework for the current research.

 

[bashwell]

It's dated (2006), but the Colorado Compendium for Emergency Medicine is a good start.

Edit: Sorry, I originally just read the title, then replied, but now I see you said anything else besides the Colorado Compendium! I'll leave the link though in case others need it.

 

[gogodre]

ALIEM just posted a 50 seminal papers interns should be aware of list. Hehe seminal

 

[bashwell]

ALIEM just posted a 50 seminal papers interns should be aware of list. Hehe seminal

Cool! Link please?

 

[gogodre]

http://www.aliem.com/2016/must-read-em-journal-articles-2016-edition/

 

[EM4Reals]

http://thesgem.com/2015/02/sgem106-...th-minor-head-injury/52-articles-in-52-weeks/

Skeptics Guide To Emergency Medicine had a great podcast on something like this. Click on the link on that webpage that says 52 articles in 52 weeks... or just download the attached file

 

[da8s0859q]

ProCESS in addition to Rivers. Agree that you may want to consider other uses for time.

 

[alpinism]

http://thesgem.com/2015/02/sgem106-...th-minor-head-injury/52-articles-in-52-weeks/

Skeptics Guide To Emergency Medicine had a great podcast on something like this. Click on the link on that webpage that says 52 articles in 52 weeks... or just download the attached file

This.

 

[JustTryingToHangOut]

I came across the book "Emergency Medicine Evidence: The Practice-Changing Studies" a little while ago after seeing it recommended and it seems to have good reviews. That might be something you would be interested in the future. Also maybe, "The Canadian C-Spine Rule versus the NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria in Patients with Trauma" paper.

 

[cbrons]

RIVERS trial. Made us serious about sepsis, which kills a lot of people.

which was a bad trial and a bad paper

 

[deleted245139]

^agree, but I think process/promise/arise were a research-based commentary on the lasting effects of Rivers work: we are now more aggressive in both recognition and treatment of sepsis. I'm really happy to see the three trials that followed demonstrated that we are doing a great job with management in the post-Rivers era

 

[filhodeinferno]

which was a bad trial and a bad paper

LOL "bad trial." ok. The point is that it changed the way we look at sepsis.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

which was a bad trial and a bad paper

No it wasn't. Retrospectively we know the bundle is unnecessary, but without some years with it and the darn proprietary device he sold to the hospital before publication, we wouldn't be this good at sepsis.