ReviewBMJ global health2019
Global health, global surgery and mass casualties. I. Rationale for integrated mass casualty centres.
Review in BMJ global health, 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.
- Global challenges and perspectives in acute and emergency general surgery in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Fragmented geographies and trauma pathways in the Middle East.BMJ global health · 2026Review
- Trauma Systems in Conflict Zones: A Qualitative Study of Field Operational Requirements in Humanitarian Care.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- A scoping review on the essential role of global neurotrauma in achieving the sustainable development goals.Discover public health · 2026Review
- HEADS UP 2024: Policy Efforts to Improve Equitable Access to Acute Stroke Care Globally.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Review
- Building sustainable and resilient surgical systems: A narrative review of opportunities to integrate climate change into national surgical planning in the Western Pacific region.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been well-documented recently that 5 billion people globally lack surgical care. Also well-documented is the need to improve mass casualty disaster response. Many of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030-healthcare and economic milestones-require significant improvement in global surgical care, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Trauma/stroke centres evolved in high-income countries with evidence that 24/7/365 surgical and critical care markedly improved morbidity and mortality for trauma and stroke and for cardiovascular events, difficult childbirth, acute abdomen. Duplication of emergency services, especially civilian and military, often results in suboptimal, expensive care. By combining all healthcare resources within the ongoing healthcare system, more efficient care for both individual emergencies and mass casualty situations can be achieved. We describe progress in establishing mass casualty centres in Chile and Pakistan. In both locations, planning among the stakeholders (primarily civilian and military) indicates the feasibility of such integrated surgical and emergency care. We also review other programmes and initiatives to provide integrated mass casualty disaster response. Integrated mass casualty centres are a feasible means to improve both day-to-day surgical care and mass casualty disaster response. The humanitarian aspect of mass casualty disasters facilitates integration among stakeholders-from local healthcare systems to military resources to international healthcare organisations. The benefits of mass casualty centres-both healthcare and economic-can facilitate achieving the 2030 UN SDGs.
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.