Accès gratuit
Numéro
Ann. Fr. Med. Urgence
Volume 9, Numéro 3, Mai 2019
Page(s) 200 - 206
Section Actualités en médecine d’urgence / News in emergency medicine
DOI https://doi.org/10.3166/afmu-2019-0155
Publié en ligne 14 avril 2019
  • Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, et al (2004) Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2:1247–55 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Singh B, Mommer SK, Erwin PJ, et al (2013) Pulmonary embolism rule‑out criteria (PERC) in pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Emerg Med J 30:701–6 [Google Scholar]
  • Hutchinson BD, Navin P, Marom EM, et al (2015) Overdiagnosis of pulmonary embolism by pulmonary CT angiography. Am J Roentgenol 205:271–7 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Stein PD, Goodman LR, Hull RD, et al (2012) Diagnosis and management of isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism: review and assessment of the options. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 18:20–6 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al (2016) The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis‑3). JAMA 315:801–10 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jiang J, Yang J, Mei J, et al (2018) Head‑to‑head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta‑analysis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 26:56 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Beam AL, Kohane IS (2018) Big data and machine learning in health care. JAMA 319:1317–8 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mao Q, Jay M, Hoffman JL, et al (2018) Multicentre validation of a sepsis prediction algorithm using only vital sign data in the emergency department, general ward and ICU. BMJ Open 8:e017833 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Shankar‑Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al (2016) Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis‑3). JAMA 315:775–87 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al (2016) The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis‑3). JAMA 315:801–10 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bruno JJ, Dee BM, Anderegg BA, et al (2012) US practitioner opinions and prescribing practices regarding corticosteroid therapy for severe sepsis and septic shock. J Crit Care 27:351–61 [Google Scholar]
  • Dries DL, Exner DV, Domanski MJ, et al (2000) The prognostic implications of renal insufficiency in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:681–9 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Chouihed T, Manzo‑Silberman S, Peschanski N, et al (2016) Management of suspected acute heart failure dyspnea in the emergency department: results from the French prospective multicenter DeFSSICA survey. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 24:112 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hanberg JS, Tang WHW, Wilson FP, et al (2017) An exploratory analysis of the competing effects of aggressive decongestion and high‑dose loop diuretic therapy in the DOSE trial. Int J Cardiol 241:277–82 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Testani JM, Ter Maaten JM (2016) Decongestion in acute heart failure: does the end justify the Means? JACC Heart Fail 4:589–90 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sasson C, Rogers MAM, Dahl J, Kellermann AL (2010) Predictors of survival from out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 3:63–81 [Google Scholar]
  • Riou M, Ball S, Williams TA, et al (2017) “Tell me exactly what’s happened”: when linguistic choices affect the efficiency of emergency calls for cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 117:58–65 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Eisenberg M (2017) Improving telephone CPR — the devil is in the details. Resuscitation 115:A2–A3 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.