Talk:Spinal board

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

First aid (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject First aid, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.First aidWikipedia:WikiProject First aidTemplate:WikiProject First aidFirst aid articles

The KED[edit]

In the alternatives section it says that the KED is rarely used but atleast in NJ, it is protocol to use it on a stable patient with neck and back pain involved in an MVA. Can we change this, there is no citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEMZ1995 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

backboards bad?[edit]

following content was added in this dif

Despite its history of use, there is no evidence that backboards significantly immobilize the spine, nor do they improve patient outcomes. Cervical spine immobilization has been shown to increase mortality in patients with penetrating trauma.^[1]

References

^ "The Evidence Against Backboards". EMS World. Retrieved 15 May 2015.

Not sure that source complies with WP:MEDRS.... i posted a note about this question here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Long_spine_board Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, you mentioned that JEMS didn't comply with WP:MEDRS. How is that? Within the first two paragraphs, it mentions:

Ideal sources for biomedical content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals,...

It would appear to me that the Journal of Emergency Medicine would fit that criteria.--WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing in posting it where you did. Let's just sit back and let "Project Medicine" decide.--WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

am loving your edits - you seem like you know what you are talking about. just not sure about the sourcing. the EMSWorld article seems OK but i am just not sure... Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you mentioned "EMS world" as being a poor source and not "JEMS" like I had thought. You were right. "EMS World" is not a great source. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of great sources that say long spineboards are not great. Much of the EMS world is moving away from them.

We have this position statement http://www.naemsp.org/Documents/Position%20Papers/POSITION%20EMS%20Spinal%20Precautions%20and%20the%20Use%20of%20the%20Long%20Backboard.pdf

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The Evidence Against Backboards". EMS World. Retrieved 15 May 2015.

[1]