The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Towards evidence-based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary
Abstract
Best evidence topic reports (BETs) summarise the evidence pertaining to particular clinical questions. They are not systematic reviews, but rather contain the best (highest level) evidence that can be practically obtained by busy practising clinicians. The search strategies used to find the best evidence are reported in detail to allow clinicians to update searches whenever necessary. Each BET is based on a clinical scenario and ends with a clinical bottom line that indicates, in light of the evidence found, what the reporting clinician would do if faced with the same scenario again. The BETs published below were first reported at the Critical Appraisal Journal Club at the Manchester Royal Infirmary1 or placed on the BestBETs website. Each BET has been constructed in the four stages that have been described elsewhere.2 The BETs shown here, those published previously and those currently under construction, can be seen at http://www.bestbets.org.3 Three BETs are included in this issue of the journal. Accuracy of emergency department ultrasound in detecting abdominal aortic aneurysms Use of aspirin in acute stroke Myringotomy in traumatic haemotympanum 1 Carley SD, Mackway‐Jones K, Jones A, et al. Moving towards evidence based emergency medicine: use of a structured critical appraisal journal club. J Accid Emerg Med 1998;15:220–2. 2 Mackway‐Jones K, Carley SD, Morton RJ, et al. The best evidence topic report: a modified CAT for summarising the available evidence in emergency medicine. J Accid Emerg Med 1998;15:222–6. 3 Mackway‐Jones K, Carley SD. bestbets.org: odds on favourite for evidence in emergency medicine reaches the worldwide web. J Accid Emerg Med 2000;17:235–6.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Vanden Hoek, T. L., Morrison, L. J., Shuster, M., Donnino, M., Sinz, E., Lavonas, E. J., Jeejeebhoy, F. M., & Gabrielli, A. (2010) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.110.971069 · Cited by 720
Towards evidence-based medicine in cardiothoracic surgery: best BETS
Dunning, J. (2003) · Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s1569-9293(03)00191-9 · Cited by 677
Incremental Value of Copeptin for Rapid Rule Out of Acute Myocardial Infarction
Reichlin, T., Hochholzer, W., Stelzig, C., Laule, K., Freidank, H., Morgenthaler, N. G., Bergmann, A., Potocki, M., Noveanu, M., Breidthardt, T., et al. (2009) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.01.076 · Cited by 434
Burns: Pathophysiology of Systemic Complications and Current Management
Nielson, C. B., Duethman, N. C., Howard, J. M., Moncure, M., & Wood, J. G. (2017) · Journal of Burn Care & Research · doi:10.1097/bcr.0000000000000355 · Cited by 367
Prescribing Naloxone to Actively Injecting Heroin Users: A Program to Reduce Heroin Overdose Deaths
Maxwell, S., Bigg, D., Stanczykiewicz, K., & Carlberg-Racich, S. (2006) · Journal of Addictive Diseases · doi:10.1300/j069v25n03_11 · Cited by 242
Metadata
- Authors
- Mackway-Jones, K.
- Venue
- Emergency Medicine Journal
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2020-12-28
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 78.1-78
- ISSN
- 1351-0622 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-0205
- 1472-0213
- OpenAlex
- W2159573703
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards evidence-based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/emermed-2020-211011.1
- The paper
- Mackway-Jones, K. (2021). Towards evidence-based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. Emergency Medicine Journal. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-211011.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.