The results of this study suggest that the Canadian C-spine rule

The results of this study suggest that the Canadian C-spine rule has the potential to affect healthcare costs considerably. The Ottawa group have previously examined the acceptability of the Canadian C-spine rule to clinicians (Brehaut et al 2009). To do this, the rule

was rated using the Ottawa Acceptability Akt inhibitor of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI), which ranges from 0 (least acceptable) to 6 (most acceptable). Emergency physicians in Australia, Canada, USA, and UK rated the Canadian C-spine rule between 4 and 5 on the OADRI, suggesting good acceptability. Vaillancourt et al (2009) found 100% sensitivity and 38% specificity of the Canadian C-spine rule when used by paramedics. It would be worthwhile repeating these studies with Emergency Department physiotherapists to add to the growing body of evidence to guide this arm of the profession (Jibuike et al 2003, McClellan et al 2006, Webb 2008). The participating centres were 6 teaching and 6 community hospitals. Surprisingly, the effect of implementation of the Canadian C-spine rule was less in academic centres than in community

hospitals. Several of the academic centres had participated in an earlier validation study of the rule, which may have increased their baseline use of the rule. The procedures to introduce the rule to the active hospitals in this trial were extensive. Given this and the relatively low cost of diagnostic radiography the study could have benefited from a cost effectiveness analysis. Nevertheless, this excellent study shows the efficacy and importance of clinical decision making rules. The authors are to be congratulated on the study. “
“Summary of: Thomas M, McKinley Selleck PLX3397 RK, Mellor S, Watkin G, Holloway E, Scullion J, et al (2009) Breathing exercises for asthma: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax 64:

55– 61. [Prepared by Mark Elkins, CAP Co-ordinator.] Question: Does breathing training improve respiratory symptoms, isothipendyl quality of life and objective markers of disease severity in adults with asthma? Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: Ten general practitioner (GP) practices in Leicester, UK. Participants: Adults treated for asthma in a GP practice with moderate impairment of asthma-related health status, defined as a score less than 5.5 on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Smokers were excluded. Randomisation of 183 participants allotted 94 to breathing training and 89 to a control group. Interventions: Usual physicians for both groups were requested to continue baseline therapy if possible. All participants were invited to 3 sessions within one month: an initial 60-min session with 2–4 participants, followed by two individual sessions of 30–45 minutes. At these sessions, the intervention group were educated about abnormal breathing patterns and taught appropriate regular diaphragmatic and nasal breathing techniques and encouraged to practise these exercises for at least 10 min each day.

This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>