ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Quality Indicators for Avalanche Victim Management and Rescue.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency care for avalanche buried patients - a narrative review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- What Is New in Altitude- and Cold-Related Illnesses of Travel: Appraisal and Summary of the Updated Guidelines from the Wilderness Medical Society.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Alternative techniques for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in extreme environments - A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Prevalence of airway patency and air pocket in critically buried avalanche victims - a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Effects of Carbon Dioxide and Temperature on the Oxygen-Hemoglobin Dissociation Curve of Human Blood: Implications for Avalanche Victims.Frontiers in medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decisions in the management and rescue of avalanche victims are complex and must be made in difficult, sometimes dangerous, environments. Our goal was to identify indicators for quality measurement in the management and rescue of avalanche victims. The International Commission for Mountain Emergency Medicine (ICAR MedCom) convened a group of internal and external experts. We used brainstorming and a five-round modified nominal group technique to identify the most relevant quality indicators (QIs) according to the National Quality Forum Measure Evaluation Criteria. Using a consensus process, we identified a set of 23 QIs to measure the quality of the management and rescue of avalanche victims. These QIs may be a valuable tool for continuous quality improvement. They allow objective feedback to rescuers regarding clinical performance and identify areas that should be the foci of further quality improvement efforts in avalanche rescue.
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.