Objective: This study investigates the influence of different aspects of methodologic quality on the conclusions of a systematic review concerning treatments of acute lateral ankle sprain.

Method: A data set of a systematic review of 44 trials was used, of which 22 trials could be included in this study. Quality assessment of the individual studies was performed using the Delphi list. We calculated effect sizes of the main outcome measure in each study in order to evaluate the relationship between overall quality scores and outcome. Next, we investigated the impact of design attributes on pooled effect sizes by subgroup analysis.

Results: The quality of most studies (82%) was low; only 4 of 22 trials were of high quality. Studies with proper randomization and blinding procedure produce a slightly higher (not statistically significant) effect estimate compared to the other studies.

Conclusion: Previous research has suggested that methodologically poorly designed studies tend to over-estimate the effect estimate. Our study does not confirm these conclusions.

Prehospital care experienced a “honeymoon” from the early 1970s until recently. Treatments usually were extrapolated directly from the hospital setting, even though the prehospital environment is markedly different. That honeymoon is over and emergency medical services (EMS) providers must prove what is beneficial. Additionally, academic prehospital care physicians interested in professional advancement, must show the same ability as do the more traditional medical academicians to expand the knowledge base of their chosen field.

This manuscript will highlight the basic features and identify the potential benefits and pitfalls of prehospital research. This chapter is not a cookbook for EMS research, nor will it obviate the need for accessing other sources on research design. Other manuscripts within this series will focus on more specific topics; yet, it will be obvious that many of the points made here will be re-emphasized in the following papers. That simply is a reflection of the importance of these commonly overlooked perils and pitfalls.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) researchers face a variety of obstacles when conducting out-of-hospital investigations. This paper reviews some common problems and discusses practical solutions to facilitate the process and help avoid traps. This discussion focuses on prospective prehospital research.

One challenge to EMS research is to find new methods of improving the quality of care delivered in the field. There has been an emphasis placed on “exciting” topics, such as cardiac arrest and trauma resuscitation. Other events dominate the daily practice of prehospital medicine, but have not been well-studied. For example, what is the best way to immobilize the spine? What should be done for a patient with a suspected C-spine injury who is wearing a motorcycle helmet? No one has a scientifically proven approach to solve these common prehospital problems. There is a need to look at problems such as immobilization, asthma, overdose, and congestive heart failure to see what can be done differently in the field.