Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25085100›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2015

Wound management in disaster settings.

Prasit Wuthisuthimethawee, Samuel J Lindquist, Nicola Sandler, Ornella Clavisi, Stephanie Korin, David Watters, Russell L Gruen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Facilitating optimal wound care.World journal of surgery · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Prasit WuthisuthimethaweeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Songklanagarind Hospital, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Songkhla, Thailand.
Samuel J Lindquist
Nicola Sandler
Ornella Clavisi
Stephanie Korin
David Watters
Russell L Gruen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew guidelines exist for the initial management of wounds in disaster settings. As wounds sustained are often contaminated, there is a high risk of further complications from infection, both local and systemic. Healthcare workers with little to no surgical training often provide early wound care, and where resources and facilities are also often limited, and clear appropriate guidance is needed for early wound management.

methodsWe undertook a systematic review focusing on the nature of wounds in disaster situations, and the outcomes of wound management in recent disasters. We then presented the findings to an international consensus panel with a view to formulating a guideline for the initial management of wounds by first responders and subsequent healthcare personnel as they deploy.

resultsWe included 62 studies in the review that described wound care challenges in a diverse range of disasters, and reported high rates of wound infection with multiple causative organisms. The panel defined a guideline in which the emphasis is on not closing wounds primarily but rather directing efforts toward cleaning, debridement, and dressing wounds in preparation for delayed primary closure, or further exploration and management by skilled surgeons.

conclusionGood wound care in disaster settings, as outlined in this article, can be achieved with relatively simple measures, and have important mortality and morbidity benefits.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisConsensus Statements as TopicDisastersBandagesCrush SyndromeDebridementDocumentationFirst AidHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicTherapeutic IrrigationWound InfectionWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID25085100
PMCPMC4356884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.