Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25144337›Full record

ReviewChest2014

Resource-poor settings: infrastructure and capacity building: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement.

James Geiling, Frederick M Burkle, Dennis Amundson, Guillermo Dominguez-Cherit, Charles D Gomersall, Matthew L Lim, Valerie Luyckx, Babak Sarani, Timothy M Uyeki, T Eoin West and 6 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Chest, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Clinical management and mortality among COVID-19 cases in sub-Saharan Africa: A retrospective study from Burkina Faso and simulated case analysis.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

James Geiling
Frederick M Burkle
Dennis Amundson
Guillermo Dominguez-Cherit
Charles D Gomersall
Matthew L Lim
Valerie Luyckx
Babak Sarani
Timothy M Uyeki
T Eoin West
Michael D Christian
Asha V Devereaux
Jeffrey R Dichter
Niranjan Kissoon
Task Force for Mass Critical Care
Task Force for Mass Critical Care

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999OPHPR CDC HHS 1U90TP00591-01OPHPR CDC HHS U90 TP000591PHS HHS 1-HFPEP070013-01-00Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlanning for mass critical care (MCC) in resource-poor or constrained settings has been largely ignored, despite their large populations that are prone to suffer disproportionately from natural disasters. Addressing MCC in these settings has the potential to help vast numbers of people and also to inform planning for better-resourced areas.

methodsThe Resource-Poor Settings panel developed five key question domains; defining the term resource poor and using the traditional phases of disaster (mitigation/preparedness/response/recovery), literature searches were conducted to identify evidence on which to answer the key questions in these areas. Given a lack of data upon which to develop evidence-based recommendations, expert-opinion suggestions were developed, and consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi process.

resultsThe five key questions were then separated as follows: definition, infrastructure and capacity building, resources, response, and reconstitution/recovery of host nation critical care capabilities and research. Addressing these questions led the panel to offer 33 suggestions. Because of the large number of suggestions, the results have been separated into two sections: part 1, Infrastructure/Capacity in this article, and part 2, Response/Recovery/Research in the accompanying article.

conclusionsLack of, or presence of, rudimentary ICU resources and limited capacity to enhance services further challenge resource-poor and constrained settings. Hence, capacity building entails preventative strategies and strengthening of primary health services. Assistance from other countries and organizations is needed to mount a surge response. Moreover, planning should include when to disengage and how the host nation can provide capacity beyond the mass casualty care event.

Indexed as

ConsensusPandemicsCapacity BuildingCritical CareCritical IllnessHealth ResourcesHumansWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID25144337
PMCPMC6679686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.