ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2018
Structured analysis, evaluation and report of the emergency response to a terrorist attack in Wuerzburg, Germany using a new template of standardised quality indicators.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2018. 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Retrospective charts for reporting, analysing, and evaluating disaster emergency response: a systematic review.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Lessons learned from terror attacks: thematic priorities and development since 2001-results from a systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Pooled it
- Examining the experiences of prehospital emergency workers in emergency medical intervention during terrorist attacks: a qualitative study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- European perspectives on pre-hospital interagency collaboration during terrorist incidents: a focus group study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Communication failure in the prehospital response to major terrorist attacks: lessons learned and future directions.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Review
- [Further developments in disaster control: goal, strategy and tactic using the example of the 2021 flood disaster in the Ahr valley].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2022Article
- [Safety aspects, emergency preparedness and hazard prevention in hospitals concerning mass casualty incidents (MCI)/terror-related MCI : Prospects on future challenges based on survey results from the 3rd emergency conference of the DGU].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
- Multiagency programs with police as a partner for reducing radicalisation to violence.Campbell systematic reviews · 2021Review
- Emergency response to terrorist attacks: results of the federal-conducted evaluation process in Germany.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2020Article
- [Advanced medical post within hospitals as possible tactical instrument for handling mass casualty incidents].Der Anaesthesist · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil now there has been a reported lack of systematic reports and scientific evaluations of rescue missions during terror attacks. This however is urgently required in order to improve the performance of emergency medical services and to be able to compare different missions with each other. Aim of the presented work was to report the systematic evaluation and the lessons learned from the response to a terror attack that happened in Wuerzburg, Germany in 2016.
methodsA team of 14 experts developed a template of quality indicators and operational characteristics, which allow for the description, assessment and comparison of civil emergency rescue missions during mass killing incidents. The entire systematic evaluation process consisted of three main steps. The first step was the systematic data collection according to the quality indicators and operational characteristics. Second was the systematic stratification and assessment of the data. The last step was the prioritisation of the identified weaknesses and the definition of the lessons learned.
resultsFive important "lessons learned" have been defined. First of all, a comprehensive concept for rescue missions during terror attacks is essential. Furthermore, the establishment of a defined high priority communication infrastructure between the different dispatch centres ("red phone") is vital. The goal is to secure the continuity of information between a few well-defined individuals. Thirdly, the organization of the incident scene needs to be commonly decided and communicated between police, medical services and fire services during the mission. A successful mission tactic requires continuous flux of reports to the on-site command post. Therefore, a predefined and common communication infrastructure for all operational forces is a crucial point. Finally, all strategies need to be extensively trained before the real life scenario hits.
conclusionAccording to a systematic evaluation, we defined the lessons learned from a terror attack in 2016. Further systematic reports and academic work surrounding life threatening rescue missions and mass killing incidents are needed in order to ultimately improve such mission outcomes. In the future, a close international collaboration might help to find the best database to report and evaluate major incidents but also mass killing events.
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.