The Evidence Evaluation Process for the 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
“In God we trust. All others must bring data.”
— —Robert Hayden, Plymouth State College
Evidence-based medicine is described as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about individual patients.”1 The evidence evaluation process summarized in this supplement was designed to ensure the review of all available evidence pertaining to resuscitation. Many aspects of the resuscitation process create unique challenges for the design of experimental protocols and data analysis and have not been evaluated by randomized controlled human studies. Exclusion of studies other than controlled human studies would eliminate a wealth of information that could help guide resuscitation management; for this reason, lower levels of evidence, including nonhuman studies, were included in the review.
To begin the review process, international experts (worksheet reviewers) were assigned questions to evaluate. The questions were selected from a survey of each of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) specialty task forces (eg, basic life support, advanced life support, pediatrics) and from the ILCOR member resuscitation councils and their training networks. The evaluation of each question was completed on a structured evidence evaluation worksheet developed for the 2005 Consensus Conference. Because many of the worksheet reviewers had never conducted a structured evidence-based review, instructional sessions were held at the twice-yearly ILCOR meetings and an instructional CD-ROM was created, demonstrating how to conduct an efficient search for evidence, complete the worksheet, and use citation management software. Two worksheet experts (Arno Zaritsky and Peter Morley) were appointed to provide further quality assurance; they reviewed all submitted worksheets. Comments, emendations, and queries were provided to the worksheet reviewers in an iterative process until the worksheets were deemed complete by the worksheet experts.
The worksheets completed for the 2005 …