Inclusion criteria for the review were defined very broadly with respect to participants, interventions and outcomes. This seemed appropriate for the topic area, although a lack of specific criteria for participants, interventions and outcomes together with an inability to stratify presented difficulties when interpreting the narrative synthesis. A range of databases and journals were searched. As no attempts were made to locate unpublished studies and studies published languages other than English, relevant studies may have been missed. There was potential for bias and error in the selection of studies, because the methods were not reported and study validity was not assessed. The heterogeneity in the included studies in terms of participants, interventions and outcomes made it difficult to draw conclusions. The process of screening to recruit participants and the experience of being injured, the severity of injury and the emergency setting were all factors that may have influenced the results.
The authors' statement that specific conclusions could not be reached seemed appropriate, but given the above concerns and the potential for bias in the reporting of the review, the reliability of their conclusions was unclear and should be interpreted with caution.