ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Should the Government Be Allowed to Take Control over Your Car as Part of a Disaster Management Plan?
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Does Government Intervention Ensure Food Safety? Evidence from China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWith the Safety Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in Vehicle Evolution (SELF DRIVE) Act in the United States, there is a growing interest in autonomous vehicles (AVs). One avenue of innovation would be to use them to mobilize and coordinate response efforts during natural disasters. This study uses an earthquake response in an urban, developed setting as a hypothetical example case study. In this hypothetical scenario, private AVs would be mobilized to help rescue victims from collapsed structures.
methodsA Markov model compared an intervention arm with AVs to a status quo arm using a hypothetical cohort of American earthquake victims. The three possible health states were trapped but alive, rescued and alive, and dead. The cycle length of the Markov model was 6 h.
resultsThe cost of deploying AVs was $90,139 relative to $87,869 in status quo arm. Using AVs produced an incremental cost of $2269 (95% credible interval (CI) = $-12,985-$8959). Victims have 7.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the intervention arm compared to 7.20 QALYs in the status quo arm, resulting in an incremental gain of 0.13 (95% CI = -0.73-2.19) QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $16,960/QALY gained (95% CI = cost-saving-$69,065/QALY). DISCUSSION: The mobilization of private AVs in the setting of an earthquake has the potential to save money and reduce the loss of life. AVs may advance emergency management competencies.
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.