ArticleEuropean journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine2017
Disaster preparedness and response improvement: comparison of the 2010 Haiti earthquake-related diagnoses with baseline medical data.
Article in European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An internet of things assisted drone based approach to reduce rapid spread of COVID-19.Journal of safety science and resilience = An quan ke xue yu ren xing (Ying wen) · 2020Article
- The Use of Drones in Emergency Medicine: Practical and Legal Aspects.Emergency medicine international · 2019Review
- Diagnoses, infections and injuries in Northern Syrian children during the civil war: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2017Article
- A refugee camp in the centre of Europe: clinical characteristics of asylum seekers arriving in Brussels.BMJ open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDisaster medicine research generally lacks control groups. This study aims to describe categories of diagnoses encountered by the Belgian First Aid and Support Team after the 2010 Haiti earthquake and extract earthquake-related changes from comparison with comparable baseline data. The hypothesis is that besides earthquake-related trauma, medical problems emerge soon, questioning an appropriate composition of Foreign Medical Teams and Interagency Emergency Health Kits.
methodsUsing a descriptive cohort study design, diagnoses of patients presenting to the Belgian field hospital were prospectively registered during 4 weeks after the earthquake and compared with those recorded similarly by Médecins Sans Frontières in the same area and time span in previous and later years.
resultsOf 7000 triaged postearthquake patients, 3500 were admitted, of whom 2795 were included and analysed. In the fortnight after the earthquake, 90% suffered from injury. In the following fortnight, medical diseases emerged, particularly respiratory (23%) and digestive (14%). More than 53% developed infections within 3 weeks after the event. Médecins Sans Frontières registered 6407 patients in 2009; 6033 in 2011; and 7300 in 2012. A comparison indicates that postearthquake patients suffered significantly less from violence, but more from wounds, respiratory, digestive and ophthalmological diseases.
conclusionThis is the first comparison of postearthquake diagnoses with baseline data. Within 2 weeks after the acute phase of an earthquake, respiratory, digestive and ophthalmological problems will emerge to the prejudice of trauma. This fact should be anticipated when composing Foreign Medical Teams and Interagency Emergency Health Kits to be sent to the disaster site.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.