Crossbow Injuries: Predictors of Mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Crossbow injuries are rare but carry significant morbidity and mortality, and there is limited evidence in the medical literature to guide care. This paper reviews the case reports and case series of crossbow injuries and looks for trends regarding morbidity and mortality based on the type of arrow, anatomic location of injury, and intent of injury. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for cases of crossbow injuries and data were abstracted into a spreadsheet. Statistics were done in SPSS. RESULTS: 358 manuscripts were returned in the search. After deduplication and removal of nonclinical articles, 101 manuscripts remained. Seventy-one articles describing 90 incidents met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 36.5 years. There were 10 female and 79 male victims. Fatality was 36% for injuries by field tip arrows and 71% for broadhead arrows, p = .024. Assaults were fatal in 84% of cases, suicides in 29%, and accidental injuries in 17%, p < .001. Mortality was similar for wounds to the head and neck (41%), chest (42%), abdomen (33%), extremities (50%), and multiple regions, p = .618. CONCLUSIONS: Crossbows are potentially lethal weapons sold with fewer restrictions than firearms. Injuries caused by broadhead arrows are more likely to be fatal than injuries from field tip arrows. The anatomic location of injury does not correlate with fatality. More than half of crossbow injuries are due to attempted suicide, with a high case-fatality rate.

Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians' systematic reviews services. METHODS: For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. RESULTS: We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. CONCLUSION: Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.