Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27957642›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2017

Radiology response in the emergency department during a mass casualty incident: a retrospective study of the two terrorist attacks on 22 July 2011 in Norway.

Victoria Solveig Young, Heidi B Eggesbø, Christine Gaarder, Pål Aksel Næss, Tone Enden

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A systematic review of hemorrhage and vascular injuries in civilian public mass shootings.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Automatic Personal Identification Using a Single MRI Slice.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Victoria Solveig YoungDivision of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, PO Box 4950, Nydalen, N-0424, Oslo, Norway. solyoung@online.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0388-350X
Heidi B EggesbøDivision of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, PO Box 4950, Nydalen, N-0424, Oslo, Norway.
Christine GaarderDepartment of Traumatology, Oslo University Hospital, PO Box 4950, Nydalen, N-0424, Oslo, Norway.
Pål Aksel NæssDepartment of Traumatology, Oslo University Hospital, PO Box 4950, Nydalen, N-0424, Oslo, Norway.
Tone EndenDivision of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, PO Box 4950, Nydalen, N-0424, Oslo, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the use of radiology in the emergency department (ED) in a trauma centre during a mass casualty incident, using a minimum acceptable care (MAC) strategy in which CT was restricted to potentially severe head injuries.

methodsWe retrospectively studied the initial use of imaging on patients triaged to the trauma centre following the twin terrorist attacks in Norway on 22 July 2011.

resultsNine patients from the explosion and 15 from the shooting were included. Fourteen patients had an Injury Severity Score >15. During the first 15 h, 22/24 patients underwent imaging in the ED. All 15 gunshot patients had plain films taken in the ED, compared to three from the explosion. A CT was performed in 18/24 patients; ten of these were completed in the ED and included five non-head CTs, the latter representing deviations from the MAC strategy. No CT referrals were delayed or declined. Mobilisation of radiology personnel resulted in a tripling of the staff.

conclusionsPlain film and CT capacity was never exceeded despite deviations from the MAC strategy. An updated disaster management plan will require the radiologist to cancel non-head CTs performed in the ED until no additional MCI patients are expected. KEY POINTS: • Minimum acceptable care (MAC) should replace normal routines in mass casualty incidents. • MAC implied reduced use of imaging in the emergency department (ED). • CT in ED was restricted to suspected severe head injuries during MAC. • The radiologist should cancel all non-head CTs in the ED during MAC.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalTrauma CentersAdolescentAdultDisaster PlanningFemaleHumansInjury Severity ScoreMaleMass Casualty IncidentsNorwayRetrospective StudiesTerrorismTriageWounds, GunshotYoung AdultDisaster planningEmergency radiologyMass casualty incidentRadiology departmentTrauma

Identifiers

PMID27957642
PMCPMC5486787
OpenAlexW2561787219

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.