Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Advanced Search
Correspondence

Fronts of Internal Emergency Medicine Research for Years to Come

He, Xiao-Jun1,; Chen, Zhen-Ying2

Author Information

1Department of Chinese Journal of Emergency Medicine, Medical College, The Second Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310009, China

2Library of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310027, China

Address for correspondence: Xiao-Jun He, Department of Chinese Journal of Emergency Medicine, The Second Hospital of Zhejiang University, Medical College, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310009, China E-mail: [email protected]

Received December 23, 2014

doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.154333
  • Free

To the Editor: As we have known, Emergency Medicine is an interdisciplinary subject and has many hot spots for research. However, many researchers often worry that their research is too narrowed or not so cutting edge as to be accepted by journals with high impact factor (IFs). Why? One reason perhaps lies in the fact that many of them have difficulty in following the fronts and hot spots in internal Emergency Medicine research.

Here, we introduce the use of Essential Science Indicator (USA) tools to analyze the frontier and cutting edge researches in the field of internal Emergency Medicine, and we hope this can help researchers in finding research fronts.

The 5 hotspots of internal Emergency Medicine research were “sepsis,” “acute pulmonary,” “trauma,” “shock” and “cardiopulmonary resuscitation.” Yes, sepsis is the hottest subject in Emergency Medicine. Although there are already some large studies published in top medicine journals about Surviving Sepsis Campaign Protocols (SSCP),[123456] SSCP is still the hottest front for years to come. The followed hotspots are acute lung injury; the most attention were paid on the acute respiratory distress syndrome, receptor signaling, and acute lung injury evaluation. And others can refer to the Table 1.

T1-24
Table 1:
The keywords and fronts of internal Emergency Medicine research

REFERENCES

1. ProCESS Investigators. Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, Barnato AE, Weissfeld LA, et al A randomized trial of protocol. based care for early septic shock N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1683–93
2. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012 Crit Care Med. 2013;41:580–637
3. Lilly CM. The ProCESS trial – A new era of sepsis management N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1750–1
4. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Knoblich B, et al Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1368–77
5. Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel JF, Grelon F, Megarbane B, Anguel N, et al High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1583–93
6. Jones AE, Shapiro NI, Trzeciak S, Arnold RC, Claremont HA, Kline JA, et al Lactate clearance vs central venous oxygen saturation as goals of early sepsis therapy: A randomized clinical trial JAMA. 2010;303:739–46

Edited by: Yuan-Yuan Ji

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

© 2015 Chinese Medical Association