Physical therapy interventions for cervicogenic dizziness in a military-aged population: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic cervicogenic dizziness is dizziness that is temporally associated with neck pain and injury after other causes of dizziness have been excluded. It can lead to activity limitations and participation restrictions that may include lost duty or work days. The objective of this systematic review is to determine which interventions are most effective in decreasing dizziness or vertigo and neck pain in military-aged adults with traumatic cervicogenic dizziness. METHODS: The literature will be systematically searched using the following online databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Cochrane Methodology Register), CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and J-STAGE. The review will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster RCTs and controlled (non-randomized) clinical trials or cluster trials, and observational studies (including prospective and retrospective comparative cohort and case-control or nested case-control studies) and determine the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions for the treatment of traumatic cervicogenic dizziness in military-aged adults. Assessment of methodological quality will be performed by two independent, blinded reviewers using the PEDro scale. The level of evidence will be determined using the GRADE scale. The primary outcome measures will be change in dizziness and neck pain and disability from baseline to the last available follow-up, measured using the Dizziness Handicap Inventory and Neck Disability Index. Other relevant outcome measures will include self-reported change in symptoms, time to return to duty or work, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will identify, evaluate, and integrate the evidence on the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions for cervicogenic dizziness in a military-aged population. We anticipate our findings may inform individual treatment and future research. Clinical recommendations generated from this systematic review may inform military physical therapy treatment of individuals with cervicogenic dizziness. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: In accordance with the guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 21 January 2020 (registration number CRD42020150853). In the event of protocol amendments, the date of each amendment will be accompanied by a description of the change and the rationale.

Comparison of Military and Civilian Methods for Determining Potentially Preventable Deaths: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Military and civilian trauma experts initiated a collaborative effort to develop an integrated learning trauma system to reduce preventable morbidity and mortality. Because the Department of Defense does not currently have recommended guidelines and standard operating procedures to perform military preventable death reviews in a consistent manner, these performance improvement processes must be developed. Objectives: To compare military and civilian preventable death determination methods to understand the existing best practices for evaluating preventable death. Evidence Review: This systematic review followed the PRISMA reporting guidelines. English-language articles were searched from inception to February 15, 2017, using the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Articles were initially screened for eligibility and excluded based on predetermined criteria. Articles reviewing only prehospital deaths, only inhospital deaths, or both were eligible for inclusion. Information on study characteristics was independently abstracted by 2 investigators. Reported are methodological factors affecting the reliability of preventable death studies and the preventable death rate, defined as the number of potentially preventable deaths divided by the total number of deaths within a specific patient population. Findings: Fifty studies (8 military and 42 civilian) met the inclusion criteria. In total, 1598 of 6500 military deaths reviewed and 3346 of 19 108 civilian deaths reviewed were classified as potentially preventable. Among military studies, the preventable death rate ranged from 3.1% to 51.4%. Among civilian studies, the preventable death rate ranged from 2.5% to 85.3%. The high level of methodological heterogeneity regarding factors, such as preventable death definitions, review process, and determination criteria, hinders a meaningful quantitative comparison of preventable death rates. Conclusions and Relevance: The reliability of military and civilian preventable death studies is hindered by inconsistent definitions, incompatible criteria, and the overall heterogeneity in study methods. The complexity, inconsistency, and unpredictability of combat require unique considerations to perform a methodologically sound combat-related preventable death review. As the Department of Defense begins the process of developing recommended guidelines and standard operating procedures for performing military preventable death reviews, consideration must be given to the factors known to increase the risk of bias and poor reliability.