Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28622352›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Volunteer trials of a novel improvised dry decontamination protocol for use during mass casualty incidents as part of the UK'S Initial Operational Response (IOR).

Richard Amlôt, Holly Carter, Lorna Riddle, Joanne Larner, Robert P Chilcott

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Management of mass casualty incidents: a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Advancing the scientific study of prehospital mass casualty response through a Translational Science process: the T1 scoping literature review stage.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Mass Casualty Decontamination for Chemical Incidents: Research Outcomes and Future Priorities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Richard AmlôtEmergency Response Department Science & Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Holly CarterEmergency Response Department Science & Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Lorna RiddleEmergency Response Department Science & Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Joanne LarnerResearch Centre for Topical Drug Delivery and Toxicology, School of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Robert P ChilcottResearch Centre for Topical Drug Delivery and Toxicology, School of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8845-9400
Public Health England · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that rapid evacuation, disrobing and emergency decontamination can enhance the ability of emergency services and acute hospitals to effectively manage chemically-contaminated casualties. The purpose of this human volunteer study was to further optimise such an "Initial Operational Response" by (1) identifying an appropriate method for performing improvised skin decontamination and (2) providing guidance for use by first responders and casualties. The study was performed using two readily available, absorbent materials (paper towels and incontinence pads). The decontamination effectiveness of the test materials was measured by quantifying the amount of a chemical warfare agent simulant (methyl salicylate) removed from each volunteer's forearm skin. Results from the first study demonstrated that simulant recovery was lower in all of the dry decontamination conditions when compared to matched controls, suggesting that dry decontamination serves to reduce chemical exposure. Blotting in combination with rubbing was the most effective form of decontamination. There was no difference in effectiveness between the two absorbent materials. In the following study, volunteers performed improvised dry decontamination, either with or without draft guidelines. Volunteers who received the guidance were able to carry out improvised dry decontamination more effectively, using more of the absorbent product (blue roll) to ensure that all areas of the body were decontaminated and avoiding cross-contamination of other body areas by working systematically from the head downwards. Collectively, these two studies suggest that absorbent products that are available on ambulances and in acute healthcare settings may have generic applicability for improvised dry decontamination. Wherever possible, emergency responders and healthcare workers should guide casualties through decontamination steps; in the absence of explicit guidance and instructions, improvised dry decontamination may not be performed correctly or safely.

Indexed as

Chemical Warfare AgentsDecontaminationMass Casualty IncidentsAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited KingdomChemical Warfare Agents

Identifiers

PMID28622352
PMCPMC5473560
OpenAlexW2626349396

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.