You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Journal update
Journal Update
  1. Gabrielle Prager1,
  2. Govind Oliver2,
  3. Daniel Darbyshire3,4,
  4. Anisa Jabeen Nasir Jafar5,
  5. Richard Body6,7,
  6. Simon David Carley7,8,
  7. Charles Reynard6,7
  1. 1 Emergency Department, Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Bolton, UK
  2. 2 Ysbyty Gwynedd Emergency Department, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK
  3. 3 Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Lancashire, UK
  4. 4 Emergency Department, Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust, Salford, Salford, UK
  5. 5 Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  6. 6 Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  7. 7 Emergency Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  8. 8 Postgraduate Medicine, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Charles Reynard, Emergency Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; charlie.reynard{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-211890

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    The Emergency Medicine Journal has been publishing regular summaries of key publications regarding COVID-19 relevant to Emergency Medicine. While the disease remains with us and still dominates the news, we have broadened this journal update to include original research relevant to topics other than the COVID-19 pandemic that has appeared in both emergency and specialty journals. We will continue to use a multimodal search strategy, drawing on both free open access medical education (FOAMEd) resources and formal literature searches that we have used previously.1

    For this update, we identified 1969 papers published between 1 May and 31 May 2021. These were narrowed down to the five most interesting and relevant papers (decided by consensus within our group), providing a snapshot of those that we felt most deserved the attention of the EMJ readership. We have highlighted the main findings, key limitations and clinical bottom line for each paper.

    The papers are ranked in one of the three categories, allowing you to focus on the papers that are most vital to your practice:

    • Worth a peek—interesting, but not yet ready for prime time

    • Head turner—new concepts.

    • Game changer—this paper could/should change practice

    This month’s update was undertaken by the core editorial team based out of the EMERGING research group from Manchester.

    The Ambulance Cardiac Chest Pain Evaluation in Scotland Study (ACCESS): a prospective cohort study by Cooper et al

    Rating: Worth a peek

    Topic: Chest pain

    With the growing number of patients presenting to the ED, there has been increasing interest in validating new pathways that incorporate point of care tests (POCTs) that may enable acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to be ruled out in some patients in the prehospital environment. Some early research has suggested that this may be possible, even with a less sensitive POCT for cardiac troponin, when used alongside an established decision aid.2 3 A validated pathway like this could potentially reduce unnecessary transport …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @richardbody

    • Contributors All authors have contributed in line with the ICMJE guidelines.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.