Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26425401›Full record

ArticlePLoS currents2015

Hospital Disaster Preparedness Tools: a Systematic Review.

Esmail Heidaranlu, Abbas Ebadi, Hamid Reza Khankeh, Ali Ardalan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS currents, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Maintaining Preparedness to Severe Though Infrequent Threats-Can It Be Done?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Developing a Hospital Disaster Risk Management Evaluation Model.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2019
    Article
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

4 authors.

Esmail HeidaranluHealth Management Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abbas EbadiBehavioral Sciences Research Center (BSRC), Nursing Faculty of Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hamid Reza KhankehDepartment of Health in Emergency and Disaster, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Clinical Science and education, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ali ArdalanDisaster and Emergency Health Academy, National Institute of Health Research, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimEvaluating hospital disaster preparedness is one the best ways for hospital accreditation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of outcome measure that offer the level of measurement, reliability and validity that are known as the ' psychometric properties' of the current hospital disaster preparedness tools.

methodsIn total, 140 studies were retrieved. Studies which had been published from 2000 to 2014 and had used hospital disaster preparedness tools were appraised by using the PRISMA guideline. The content quality and the quality of the psychometric properties of the retrieved tools were assessed by using the World Health Organization Criteria for Hospital Preparedness as well as the COSMIN criteria.

findingsOnly 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, eleven hospital disaster preparedness tools had been used in these 33 studies. These tools mainly focused on evaluating structural and non-structural aspects of hospital preparedness and paid little attention, if any, to the key functional aspect.

conclusionGiven the paramount importance of evaluating hospital disaster preparedness and the weaknesses of current preparedness evaluation tools, valid and reliable tools should be developed by using experts' knowledge and experience through the processes of tool development and psychometric evaluation.

Indexed as

disasterDisasterHospital preparednessMeasurement toolSystematic reviewSystematic review.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.