ArticleHealth security
Mass Casualty Decontamination in the United States: An Online Survey of Current Practice.
Article in Health security. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A longitudinal MRI and TSPO PET-based investigation of brain region-specific neuroprotection by diazepam versus midazolam following organophosphate-induced seizures.Neuropharmacology · 2024Article
- Mass Casualty Decontamination for Chemical Incidents: Research Outcomes and Future Priorities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mass casualty decontamination is a public health intervention that would be employed by emergency responders following a chemical, biological, or radiological incident. The decontamination of large numbers of casualties is currently most often performed with water to remove contaminants from the skin surface. An online survey was conducted to explore US fire departments' decontamination practices and their preparedness for responding to incidents involving mass casualty decontamination. Survey respondents were asked to provide details of various aspects of their decontamination procedures, including expected response times to reach casualties, disrobing procedures, approaches to decontamination, characteristics of the decontamination showering process, provision for special populations, and any actions taken following decontamination. The aim of the survey was to identify any differences in the way in which decontamination guidance is implemented across US states. Results revealed that, in line with current guidance, many US fire departments routinely use the "ladder-pipe system" for conducting rapid, gross decontamination of casualties. The survey revealed significant variability in ladder-pipe construction, such as the position and number of fire hoses used. There was also variability in decontamination characteristics, such as water temperature and water pressure, detergent use, and shower duration. The results presented here provide important insights into the ways in which implementation of decontamination guidance can vary between US states. These inconsistencies are thought to reflect established perceived best practices and local adaptation of response plans to address practical and logistical constraints. These outcomes highlight the need for evidence-based national guidelines for conducting mass casualty decontamination.
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.