ReviewMilitary Medical Research2019
Pharmacological treatment of inhalation injury after nuclear or radiological incidents: The Chinese and German approach.
Review in Military Medical Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The action of topical application of Vitamin BInternational wound journal · 2023Article
- Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies: Biological Effects, Countermeasures and Biodosimetry.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Estimation of radiation-induced health hazards from a "dirty bomb" attack with radiocesium under different assault and rescue conditions.Military Medical Research · 2021Article
- Developing theNature chemistry · 2021Article
- Preparing for a "dirty bomb" attack: the optimum mix of medical countermeasure resources.Military Medical Research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inhalation injury is often associated with burns and significantly increases morbidity and mortality. The main toxic components of fire smoke are carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and irritants. In the case of an incident at a nuclear power plant or recycling facility associated with fire, smoke may also contain radioactive material. Medical treatments may vary in different countries, and in this paper, we discuss the similarities and differences in the treatments between China and Germany. Carbon monoxide poisoning is treated by 100% oxygen administration and, if available, hyperbaric oxygenation in China as well as in Germany. In addition, antidotes binding the cyanide ions and relieving the respiratory chain are important. Methemoglobin-forming agents (e.g., nitrites, dimethylaminophenol) or hydroxocobalamin (Vitamin B12) are options. The metabolic elimination of cyanide may be enhanced by sodium thiosulfate. In China, sodium nitrite with sodium thiosulfate is the most common combination. The use of dimethylaminophenol instead of sodium nitrite is typical for Germany, and hydroxocobalamin is considered the antidote of choice if available in cases of cyanide intoxications by fire smoke inhalation as it does not further reduce oxygen transport capacity. Systematic prophylactic use of corticosteroids to prevent toxic pulmonary edema is not recommended in China or Germany. Stable iodine is indicated in the case of radioiodine exposure and must be administered within several hours to be effective. The decorporation of metal radionuclides is possible with Ca (DTPA) or Prussian blue that should be given as soon as possible. These medications are used in both countries, but it seems that Ca (DTPA) is administered at lower dosages in China. Although the details of the treatment of inhalation injury and radionuclide(s) decorporation may vary, the general therapeutic strategy is very similar in China and Germany.
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.