Conectar
This article explored the publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terminology to determine usage and discuss options for low usage terms.
A plethora of terms describe the scholarship of evidence-based healthcare. Several terms are synonyms, creating redundancy and confusion. The abundance and overlap of terms may impede the discovery of evidence.
This discursive article explored and discussed publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terms.
Evidence-based healthcare terms were identified, and their 10-year (2013–2022) publication impact was assessed in the CINAHL and Medline databases. A card sort method was also used to identify terms with low usage.
A total of 18/32 terms were included in the review. The terms evidence-based practice, quality improvement, research and translational research were the most highly published terms. Publication data were presented yearly over a 10-year period. Most terms increased in publication use over time, except for three terms whose use decreased. Several terms related to translational research have multiple synonyms. It remains unknown whether these terms are interchangeable and possibly redundant, or if there are nuanced differences between terms.
We suggest a follow-up review in 3–5 years to identify publication trends to assess context and terms with continued low publication usage. Terms with persistent low usage should be considered for retirement in the reporting of scholarly activities. Additionally, terms with increasing publication trends should be treated as emerging terms that contribute to evidence-based healthcare terminology.
Confusion about the use of appropriate terminology may hinder progress in the scholarship of evidence-based healthcare. We encourage scholars to be aware of publication impact as it relates to the use of specific terminology and be purposeful in the selection of terms used in scholarly projects and publications.
Bronchiolitis is the most common viral lower respiratory tract infection in children under 2 years of age. Respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly used in this patient population with limited understanding of the patients most likely to benefit and considerable practice variability of use. This study aims to understand the factors associated with failure of HFNC support among patients with bronchiolitis and to describe the current practice variations of HFNC use in patients with bronchiolitis in Canadian hospitals including fluid management and parameters to initiate, escalate and discontinue HFNC support.
This is a multicentre retrospective cohort study including hospitalised patients aged 0–24 months with bronchiolitis requiring support with HFNC between January 2017 and December 2021. Clinical data will be collected from patient medical records from Canadian hospitals (n=12), including academic and community centres. HFNC failure will be defined as the need for escalation to non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Factors associated with HFNC failure will be analysed using logistic regression. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe practice variations of HFNC utilisation and management.
Approval from the Research Ethics Boards (REBs) has been obtained for each participating study site prior to onset of data collection including Clinical Trials Ontario for all Ontario hospital sites and REBs from British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Montreal Children’s Hospital and CHU Sainte-Justine. Study results will be disseminated through presentation at national/international conferences and publication in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals.
FreshRSS 