Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33346227›Full record

ReviewIranian journal of public health2020

Real World Effectiveness of Information and Communication Technologies in Disaster Relief: A Systematic Review.

Bingqing Lu, Xingyi Zhang, Jin Wen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Bingqing LuChinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Xingyi ZhangDepartment of Information Engineering, School of Telecommunications Engineering, Xidian University, Xi'an 710071, China.
Jin WenInstitute of Hospital Management, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in disaster relief is increasingly widespread, but it is still unclear whether ICT can reduce casualties and economic losses in disaster response phase.

methodsWe searched studies in the databases of Scopus, EI, MEDLINE and EMBASE from Jan 1, 1990, to Mar 22, 2019. Excel 2016 and VOSviewer (version 1.6.11) were used to analyze the extracted data and visualize the network diagram.

resultsWe included 169 eligible articles. The number of ICTs-related disaster-relief articles published annually shows an overall trend of growth since 1990. The United States has the greatest influence in this field. The 169 articles reported twenty-four technologies and the top three reported most frequently were remote sensing, social media, and geographic information system (GIS). The main roles of ICTs in natural disaster rescue included information dissemination, post-disaster image collection and damage assessment. However, of the 169 articles, only five reported that ICTs reduced casualties or economic losses in disaster response phase, two concluded that rescue robot was ineffective in mudslide rescue, and the remaining 162 (95.86%) did not evaluate the effect of ICTs on the rescue.

conclusionICTs have the potential to reduce casualties and economic losses, but some technologies are not applicable to all rescue scenarios. In addition, most studies did not pay attention to the effect of technology on the rescue.

Indexed as

Disaster reliefInformation and communication technologies (ICTs)Natural disaster

Identifiers

PMID33346227
PMCPMC7719660

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.