ReviewNatural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands)2022
Review on visualization technology in simulation training system for major natural disasters.
Review in Natural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 2022. 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, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secure Cross-Layer Mobile Sensing Framework for Real-Time Disaster Reporting and Visualisation Using a Mobile Application.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessing COVID-19-Related Psychological Distress: Validation of the AMICO Scale in Spanish Nursing University Students.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The perceived COVID-19 pandemic risk and mental distress in China: the mediating role of interpersonal trust and the moderating role of social cohesion.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Use of virtual reality exercises in disaster preparedness training: A scoping review.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- The development of new remote technologies in disaster medicine education: A scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major natural disasters have occurred frequently in the last few years, resulting in increased loss of life and economic damage. Most emergency responders do not have first-hand experience with major natural disasters, and thus, there is an urgent need for pre-disaster training. Due to the scenes unreality of traditional emergency drills, the failure to appeal to the target audience and the novel coronavirus pandemic, people are forced to maintain safe social distancing. Therefore, it is difficult to carry out transregional or transnational emergency drills in many countries under the lockdown. There is an increasing demand for simulation training systems that use virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality visualization technologies to simulate major natural disasters. The simulation training system related to natural disasters provides a new way for popular emergency avoidance science education and emergency rescue personnel to master work responsibilities and improve emergency response capabilities. However, to our knowledge, there is no overview of the simulation training system for major natural disasters. Hence, this paper uncovers the visualization techniques commonly used in simulation training systems, and compares, analyses and summarizes the architecture and functions of the existing simulation training systems for different emergency phases of common natural disasters. In addition, the limitations of the existing simulation training system in practical applications and future development directions are discussed to provide reference for relevant researchers to better understand the modern simulation training system.
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.