ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2024
Mass casualty decontamination following a chemical incident: evaluating improvised and interim decontamination protocols in a controlled cross-over volunteer study.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 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.
- Mass Casualty Decontamination for Chemical Incidents: Research Outcomes and Future Priorities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOn-scene improvised and interim decontamination protocols in the Initial Operational Response to chemical incidents aim for rapid intervention to minimise injury before specialist capabilities arrive. This study examines the effectiveness of UK improvised and interim protocols conducted in sequence.
methodA simulant with methyl salicylate (MeS) in vegetable oil and a fluorophore was applied to participants' shoulders, arms and legs. Participants either received no decontamination or used one of four decontamination protocols: improvised dry, improvised wet, improvised dry followed by interim or improvised wet followed by interim. Remaining simulant on the skin was quantified using gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry for MeS analysis and UV imaging for fluorophore detection. Additionally, urine samples were collected for 8 hours post application to analyse MeS levels.
resultsSignificantly less simulant was recovered from the skin post decontamination compared with no decontamination. There were no differences in the total simulant recovered across all decontamination conditions. However, significantly more simulant was recovered from the shoulder compared with the arm and leg. Variation in simulant recovery from different application areas was significantly higher in improvised-only conditions than in combined conditions. Decontamination did not affect the amount of MeS excreted in urine over 8 hours.
conclusionThis research supports current practice of starting decontamination as soon as possible after chemical exposure and highlights the importance of implementing interim decontamination following improvised decontamination.
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.