SynthesisBMJ open2023
Effectiveness of humanitarian health interventions: a systematic review of literature published between 2013 and 2021.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Public health interventions for Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in humanitarian emergencies: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC public health · 2026Review
- Health-system challenges, resilience strategies, and actionable priorities for non-communicable disease care in humanitarian crises: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Setting research priorities for sexual and reproductive health in humanitarian settings: a global, stakeholder-informed agenda.Conflict and health · 2025Article
- Perceived needs and priorities of older persons in humanitarian crises: A scoping review of literature.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2023.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Article
- Making sense of shaky data in humanitarian crises.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Child public health interventions for conflict-affected populations: A systematic review.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo provide a thorough mapping of the current quality and depth of evidence examining the effectiveness of health interventions in humanitarian settings in low and middle-income countries published in peer-reviewed journals since 2013.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health for English language peer-reviewed literature published from May 2013 through April 2021 to analyse the strength of evidence on health interventions' effectiveness in humanitarian settings in low and middle-income countries across nine thematic areas. Quality was assessed using standardised criteria and critical appraisal tools based on study design.
resultsA total of 269 publications were included in this review. The volume of publications increased since the first Elrha Humanitarian Health Evidence Review in 2013, but non-communicable diseases and water, sanitation and hygiene remain the areas with the most limited evidence base on intervention effectiveness in addition to injury and rehabilitation. Economic evaluations continued to constitute a small proportion (5%) of studies. Half of studies had unclear risk of bias, while 28% had low, 11% moderate and 11% high risk of bias. Despite increased diversity in studied interventions, variations across and within topics do not necessarily reflect the health issues of greatest concern or barriers to quality service delivery in humanitarian settings.
conclusionsDespite an increasing evidence base, the challenge of implementing high-quality and well-reported humanitarian health research persists as a critical concern. Improvements in reporting and intervention description are needed as are study designs that allow for attribution, standard indicators and longer term follow-up and outcome measures. There is a clear need to prioritise expansion of cross-cutting topics, namely health service delivery, health systems and cost-effectiveness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021254408.
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.