Rather than rely solely on expert opinion, we utilized several strategies to inform the decision-making process. We performed a comprehensive literature review and made all publications containing original data available at the time of panel deliberations. In addition, we utilized our gap analysis to identify data needs and develop information targeted to those needs. To this end, we performed focused analysis of line-level data collected in the phase II and III clinical trials, a phase IV database created by the antivenom manufacturer, and a separate prospectively-collected database from a high-volume snakebite
Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical treatment center. Whenever the above methods did not produce clear data to inform a treatment decision, we explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the manuscript. Conclusions Venomous snakebite Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical is a complex and dynamic clinical entity that is characterized by a wide variation in clinical effects and response to therapy. Using a structured, evidence-informed Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical decision-making process, we provide treatment guidelines that may reduce unnecessary variation in care and improve clinical outcomes. Competing interests SPB is an employee
of Faculty this website Medical Group of Loma Linda University School of Medicine, which has received research funding from Protherics. SPB derives no personal financial benefit from this relationship. EJL and RCD are
employees of the Denver Health and Hospital Authority, which has received research funding from Protherics. None of these authors derive personal financial benefit from this relationship. WB, VB, JNB, WPK, WHR, AMR, SAS, and DAT declare that Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical they have no competing interests. The views expressed by VB and DAT in this article are those of the authors, and do not reflect the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical official policy or position of the US Air Force, the US Navy, the US Department of Defense, or the US government. Authors’ contributions EJL conceived the project. EJL and RCD secured funding. EJL drafted the initial version of the treatment algorithm. EJL, AMR, SPB, SAS, and staff of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center prepared data analyses for presentation at the meeting. WB, VK, JNB, SPB, WPK, WHR, AMR, SAS, DAT, and RCD were voting Methisazone members of the expert consensus panel, which was chaired by a professional facilitator. SCC provided input during algorithm development and participated in the expert consensus panel as a non-voting member. EJL created the manuscript draft. All authors read, revised and contributed to the final manuscript. EJL takes responsibility for the work as a whole. Pre-publication history The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.
No related posts.