ArticleDer Anaesthesist2017
[Quality indicators for rescue operations in terrorist attacks or other threats : A pilot study after the Würzburg terrorist attack of July 2016].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 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.
- Application of quality indicators and critical lessons learned assessment as a research approach for the evaluation of rescue missions during terrorist attacks.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- [Terrorist attack training exercise-What can be learned? : Baden-Württemberg counterterrorism exercise (BWTEX)].Der Anaesthesist · 2020Review
- Structured analysis, evaluation and report of the emergency response to a terrorist attack in Wuerzburg, Germany using a new template of standardised quality indicators.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2018Article
- [Comparison of two models of a treatment area with respect to treatment times in critically ill patients : A pilot study].Der Anaesthesist · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTerrorist attacks have become reality in Germany. The aim of this work was, after the Würzburg terrorist attack, to define quality indicators and application characteristics for rescue missions in life-threatening situations. The results can be used to record data from future missions using this template in order to make them comparable with each other.
methodsAfter approval of the local ethic committee, the first step was to designate a group of experts in order to define the template in a consensus process. The next step was to perform the consensus process by defining the template. An independent expert for emergency medicine and disaster management reviewed and approved the results afterwards.
resultsThe expert group defined 13 categories and 158 parameters that will further serve the systematic evaluation of the rescue mission of the Würzburg terror attack. Preliminary results of this evaluation process are given in this paper; the full evaluation has not yet been completed. DISCUSSION: In this study we first describe quality indicators and parameters suitable for the German rescue system in order to evaluate rescue operations for violence caused mass casualties. There is similar international documentation, but it does not specifically focus on life-threatening operations and are not adapted to the German context.
conclusionThere is an important need to systematically evaluate rescue missions after mass killing incidents. In this study we report a template of parameters and quality indicators in order to systematically evaluate mass violence events. The presented template is the result of an expert consensus process and may serve as a basis for further development and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28386683What 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.