Table Evaluasi Rapid Critical Apraissal (RCA)

1. First Author (Year)

Sassan Naderi, Payal Sud, John Acerra, Salvatore Pardo, Jason Z D’Amore,
Mary Frances Ward, Maxwell Mathias, Kathryn Miele, Rahela Aziz-Bose
and Kumar Alagappan

2. Conceptual Framework
In 2010, the authors designed an anonymous nine-question survey (see
Appendix 1) to collect information on individual respondents’ rate of GL use,
specific methods of GL use, and circumstances in which respondents would
not consider GL. This survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board
of North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, prior to its
distribution.

(Pada tahun 2010, penulis merancang sebuah survei sembilan pertanyaan tanpa
nama (lihat Lampiran 1) untuk mengumpulkan informasi tentang tingkat
penggunaan responden GL, metode spesifik penggunaan GL, dan keadaan di
mana responden tidak akan menganggap GL. Survei ini disetujui oleh
Institutional Review Board di North Shore University Hospital di Manhasset,
New York, sebelum distribusinya.)

3. Design/Method
A convenience sample of 81 acute care hospital-based health providers
practicing throughout India were anonymously surveyed at the 12th Annual
Conference of the Society for Emergency Medicine in Ahmedabad, India,
November 2010. The survey included questions on the frequency and scope of
GL use.
(Contoh kenyamanan dari 81 penyedia layanan kesehatan berbasis rumah sakit
akut di seluruh India secara anonim disurvei pada Konferensi Tahunan ke-12
Society for Emergency Medicine di Ahmedabad, India, November 2010.
Survei tersebut mencakup pertanyaan tentang frekuensi dan menggunakan GL)
4. Sample/Setting
Eighty-one Indian acute-care hospital-based providers were randomly
approached and asked to complete a questionnaire at the 12th International
Conference of the Society for Emergency Medicine (INTEM) in Ahmedabad,
India, November 10-14, 2010. All 81 providers who were approached agreed
to participate. This sample consisted of 51 attending physicians, 19 residents,
3 medical students, 1 nurse, and 7 who did not specify their professional
designation.

(Delapan puluh satu penyedia layanan berbasis rumah sakit India secara acak
didekati secara acak dan diminta untuk melengkapi kuesioner pada Konferensi
Internasional Perhimpunan Kedokteran Darurat (INTEM) ke-12 di
Ahmedabad, India, 10-14 November 2010. Semua 81 penyedia layanan yang
didekati setuju untuk berpartisipasi. Sampel ini terdiri dari 51 dokter, 19
penduduk, 3 mahasiswa kedokteran, 1 perawat, dan 7 orang yang tidak
menyebutkan secara khusus penunjukan profesional mereka.)

5. Major Variables Studied (and Their Definitions)

Variabel Indevendent

Variabel Devendent

6. Measurement
Anonymous nine-question survey to collect information on individual
respondents’ rate of GL use, specific methods of GL use, and circumstances in
which respondents would not consider GL
(Sembilan pertanyaan tanpa nama untuk mengumpulkan informasi tentang
tingkat penggunaan responden responden GL, metode spesifik penggunaan
GL, dan keadaan di mana responden tidak akan menganggap GL)
 Informan : 51 attending physicians, 19 residents, 3 medical students, 1 nurse,
and 7 who did not specify their professional designation.
(51 dokter, 19 penduduk, 3 mahasiswa kedokteran, 1 perawat, dan 7 orang
yang tidak menyebutkan secara khusus penunjukan profesional mereka)

7. Data Analysis

8. Findings

9. Appraisal: Worth to Practice

PA-AH HASIL DARI STUDI VALID?
10. Apakah Hasil Dari Studi Valid ?
Ya, Survey responses were recorded in Microsoft Excel and response incidence
was calculated using SAS software (version 9.2) at the North Shore-Long
Island Jewish Health System’s Department of Biostatistics. Respondents were
grouped by years of experience practicing medicine and group responses were
compared using Fisher’s exact test.

(Tanggapan survei dicatat di Microsoft Excel dan insiden respon dihitung

dengan menggunakan perangkat lunak SAS (versi 9.2) di Departemen
Biostatistik Sistem Kesehatan Yahudi North Shore-Long Island. Responden
dikelompokkan berdasarkan pengalaman bertahun-tahun berlatih pengobatan
dan tanggapan kelompok dibandingkan dengan uji coba Fisher.)

11. Apa Hasilnya ?

68 respondents (86%) claim that they use GL in treating at least 50% of their
poisoned patients. 55 (70%) claim that they would use GL more than 1 hour
 after the ingestion of a poison, and 19 (24%) claim they would use it up to 6
hours after ingestion. 78 respondents (96%) claim they would not use lavage
to treat ingestion of caustic or corrosive substances; however, substantially
fewer respondents claim they would not use lavage in cases of hydrocarbons
(31, 38%), large objects (22,27%), or sharp objects (47,58%).

(68 responden (86%) mengklaim bahwa mereka menggunakan GL dalam

merawat setidaknya 50% pasien beracun mereka. 55 (70%) mengklaim bahwa
mereka akan menggunakan GL lebih dari 1 jam setelah menelan racun, dan 19
(24%) mengklaim bahwa mereka akan menggunakannya sampai 6 jam setelah
konsumsi. 78 responden (96%) mengklaim bahwa mereka tidak akan
menggunakan lavage untuk mengobati konsumsi zat kaustik atau korosif;
Namun, secara substansial lebih sedikit responden yang mengklaim bahwa
mereka tidak akan menggunakan pembilasan dalam kasus hidrokarbon (31,
38%), benda besar (22,27%), atau benda tajam (47,58%).)

12. Apakah Hasilnya Dapat Memabantu Dalam Merawat Pasien ?

Ya, Despite extensive evidence demonstrating little benefit and significant risk
of GL in the management of poisoned patients, it is still practiced in India.
Further research should explore why this practice is still common when less
risky and more effective, evidence-based alternatives are available.

(Meskipun ada banyak bukti yang menunjukkan sedikit manfaat dan risiko GL
yang signifikan dalam pengelolaan pasien yang diracuni, tetap dipraktekkan di
India. Penelitian lebih lanjut harus menggali mengapa praktik ini masih umum
bila kurang berisiko dan lebih efektif, alternatif berbasis bukti tersedia.)

13. Daftar pustaka

Flomenbaum N, Goldfrank L, Hoffman R, Howland MA, Lewin N, et al.
(2006) Goldfrank’s Toxicological Emergencies (8th edition) McGraw-Hill
Professional.

Grierson R, Green R, Sitar DS, Tenenbein M (2000) Gastric Lavage for Liquid
Poisons. Ann Emerg Med 35: 435-439.

Vale JA, Kulig K, American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, European

Associates of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists (2004) Position
Paper: Gastric Lavage. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 42: 933-943.

Tucker JR (2000) Indications for, techniques of, complications of, and efficacy
of gastric lavage in the treatment of the poisoned child. Curr Opin Pediatr
12: 163-165.

Kulig K, Bar-Or D, Cantrill SV, Rosen P, Rumack BH (1985) Management

of Acutely Poisoned Patients Without Gastric Emptying. Ann Emerg Med
14: 562- 567.

Bond GR (2002) The role of activated charcoal and gastric emptying in

gastrointestinal decontamination: a state-of-the-art review. Ann Emerg Med
39: 273-286.

Merigian KS, Woodard M, Hedges JR, Roberts JR, Stuebing R, et al. (1990)
Prospective Evaluation of Gastric Emptying in the Self-Poisoned Patient.
Am J Emerg Med 8: 479-483.

Comstock EG, Boisaubin EV, Comstock BS, Faulkner TP (1982) Assessment

of the efficacy of activated charcoal following gastric lavage in acute
drug emergencies. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 19: 149-165.
Pond SM, Lewis-Driver DJ, Williams GM, Green AC, Stevenson NW (1995)
Gastric empyting in acute overdose: a prospective randomised controlled
trial. Med J Aust 163: 345-349.

Proudfoot AT (1984) Abandon gastric lavage in the accident and emergency

department? Arch Emerg Med 1: 65-71.

Saetta JP, March S, Gaunt ME, Quinton DN (1991) Gastric emptying

procedures in the self-poisoned patient: are we forcing gastrin content
beyond the pylorus? J R Soc Med 84: 274-276.

Eddleston M, Haggalla S, Reginald K, Sudarshan K, Senthilkumaran M, et

al. (2007) The Hazards of Gastric Lavage for Intentional Self-Poisoning
in a Resource Poor Location. Clin Toxicol 45: 136-143.

Bhardwaj UB, Subramaniyan A, Bhalla A, Sharma N, Singh S (2011) Safety

of gastric lavage using nasogastric ryle’s tube in pesticide poisoning.
Health 3: 401-405. Roy N, Murlidhar C, Supe PA, Vaishnav PD, Vatkar A,
et al (2010) Where there are no emergency medical services-prehospital
care for the injured in Mumbai, India. Prehosp Disaster Med 25: 145-151.
Bhattarai M, Cruz Da D, Chaudhary M (2000) Letters to Editor: Managing self
poisoning. Br Med J 320: 711.

Gurjar M, Bornia AK, Azim A, Sharm KJ (2011) Managing aluminum

phosphide poisonings. J Emerg Trauma Shock 4: 378-384.