ArticleConflict and health2022
Provision of trauma care in asymmetric warfare: a conceptual framework to support the decision to implement frontline care services.
Article in Conflict and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Wartime blast induced mild traumatic brain injury in the military, damage to white matter tracts, and neuropsychological symptoms: a systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Trauma stabilization points in armed conflict: operational evolution and strategic reflections from mosul to Gaza.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Surgeons in Conflict Zones: Ethical Considerations Beyond the Operating Room.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2025Article
- Exploratory laparotomy during the battle of Mosul, 2016-2017: results from a tertiary civilian hospital in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan.BMC emergency medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe emerging trends of asymmetric and urban warfare call for a revision of the needs and the way in which frontline trauma care is provided to affected population. However, there is no consensus on the process to decide when and how to provide such lifesaving interventions in form of Trauma Stabilization Point (TSP).
methodsA three-step Delphi method was used to establish consensus. A focus group discussion was convened to propose a framework and develop the list of twenty-one (21) statements for validation of a group of experts.
resultsA panel of twenty-eight (28) experts reviewed the statements and participated to both first and second rounds. Comments and recommendations provided by the FGD and during round 1 were used to analyze the findings of the study. The proposed framework includes five main categories identified as interconnected components that facilitate the decision to implement or not the TSP. A total of sixteen (16) elements distributed across the five categories have been considered as being able to guide the decision to utilize such capability in high-risk security and resource constrained settings.
conclusionThe TSP has the potential to prevent death and disability. The proposed framework and categories add a structure to the decision-making process and represents an important step to support emergency and trauma care planning and implementation efforts.
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.