SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2024
Retrospective charts for reporting, analysing, and evaluating disaster emergency response: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Public health response to disasters and crises: setting the agenda for effective action.International journal of emergency medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGiven the frequency of disasters worldwide, there is growing demand for efficient and effective emergency responses. One challenge is to design suitable retrospective charts to enable knowledge to be gained from disasters. This study provides comprehensive understanding of published retrospective chart review templates for designing and updating retrospective research.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and text analysis of peer-reviewed articles and grey literature on retrospective chart review templates for reporting, analysing, and evaluating emergency responses. The search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science and pre-identified government and non-government organizational and professional association websites to find papers published before July 1, 2022. Items and categories were grouped and organised using visual text analysis. The study is registered in PROSPERO (374,928).
resultsFour index groups, 12 guidelines, and 14 report formats (or data collection templates) from 21 peer-reviewed articles and 9 grey literature papers were eligible. Retrospective tools were generally designed based on group consensus. One guideline and one report format were designed for the entire health system, 23 studies focused on emergency systems, while the others focused on hospitals. Five papers focused specific incident types, including chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, mass burning, and mass paediatric casualties. Ten papers stated the location where the tools were used. The text analysis included 123 categories and 1210 specific items; large heterogeneity was observed.
conclusionExisting retrospective chart review templates for emergency response are heterogeneous, varying in type, hierarchy, and theoretical basis. The design of comprehensive, standard, and practicable retrospective charts requires an emergency response paradigm, baseline for outcomes, robust information acquisition, and among-region cooperation.
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.