You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 46, Issue 1
  • Simulation study comparing readability and effectiveness of the 2012 versus 2017 ASRA local anesthetic systemic toxicity checklists

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Research report
Simulation study comparing readability and effectiveness of the 2012 versus 2017 ASRA local anesthetic systemic toxicity checklists

https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2020-101870

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    PDF extract preview

    You do not have access to the full text of this article, the first page of the PDF of this article appears above.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @lipidguy

    • Contributors RLH and MFM participated in study design, simulation, and manuscript preparation. HAB and CES participated in simulation and manuscript preparation. GW participated in study design, statistical analysis, and manuscript preparation. JMN participated in study design, simulation, statistical analysis, and manuscript preparation.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests This study is independent of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA). MFM, JMN, and GW served on the 2010 and 2017 ASRA LAST practice advisory panels. GW is an officer and shareholder of ResQ Pharma.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval The institutional review board of Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason Medical Center approved this study, which did not meet criteria (https://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/ACT_Checklist.pdf) for ClinicalTrials.gov registration.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles