Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33455578›Full record

ArticleMilitary Medical Research2021

Preparing for a "dirty bomb" attack: the optimum mix of medical countermeasure resources.

Alexis Rump, Patrick Ostheim, Stefan Eder, Cornelius Hermann, Michael Abend, Matthias Port

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Military Medical Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

6 authors.

Alexis RumpBundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology, Neuherberg Str. 11, 80937, Munich, Germany. AlexisRump@bundeswehr.org.
Patrick OstheimBundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology, Neuherberg Str. 11, 80937, Munich, Germany.
Stefan EderBundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology, Neuherberg Str. 11, 80937, Munich, Germany.
Cornelius HermannBundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology, Neuherberg Str. 11, 80937, Munich, Germany.
Michael AbendBundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology, Neuherberg Str. 11, 80937, Munich, Germany.
Matthias PortBundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology, Neuherberg Str. 11, 80937, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn radiological emergencies with radionuclide incorporation, decorporation treatment is particularly effective if started early. Treating all people potentially contaminated ("urgent treatment") may require large antidote stockpiles. An efficacious way to reduce antidote requirements is by using radioactivity screening equipment. We analyzed the suitability of such equipment for triage purposes and determined the most efficient mix of screening units and antidote daily doses.

methodsThe committed effective doses corresponding to activities within the detection limits of monitoring portals and mobile whole-body counters were used to assess their usefulness as triage tools. To determine the optimal resource mix, we departed from a large-scale scenario (60,000 victims) and based on purchase prices of antidotes and screening equipment in Germany, we calculated efficiencies of different combinations of medical countermeasure resources by data envelopment analysis. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the costs per life year saved and compared to risk reduction opportunities in other sectors of society as well as the values of a statistical life.

resultsMonitoring portals are adequate instruments for a sensitive triage after cesium-137 exposure with a high screening throughput. For the detection of americium-241 whole-body counters with a lower daily screening capacity per unit are needed. Assuming that 1% of the potentially contaminated patients actually need decorporation treatment, an efficient resource mix includes 6 monitoring portals and 25 mobile whole-body counters. The optimum mix depends on price discounts and in particular the fraction of victims actually needing treatment. The cost-effectiveness of preparedness for a "dirty bomb" attack is less than for common health care, but costs for a life year saved are less than for many risk-reduction interventions in the environmental sector.

conclusionTo achieve economic efficiency a high daily screening capacity is of major importance to substantially decrease the required amount of antidote doses. Among the determinants of the number of equipment units needed, the fraction of the potentially contaminated victims that actually needs treatment is the most difficult to assess. Judging cost-effectiveness of the preparedness for "dirty bomb" attacks is an issue of principle that must be dealt with by political leaders.

Indexed as

Medical CountermeasuresNuclear WeaponsHumansMass ScreeningRadiation InjuriesRadiation-Protective AgentsTerrorismRadiation-Protective AgentsData envelopment analysisDecorporation treatmentDirty bombEfficiencyMedical countermeasuresRadiological emergencyRadionuclide incorporationScreening

Identifiers

PMID33455578
PMCPMC7812656

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.