ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2025
Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2023.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review of the Literature From 2024.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2023.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) highlights the highest-quality research addressing emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS). This 18th edition reviews global emergency medicine (GEM) literature published during 2023.
methodsA scoping review of GEM articles published in 2023 was performed using a systematic PubMed search and manual gray literature (GRAY) search. Reviewers and editors from 10 countries screened articles utilizing case definitions of three categories of GEM research-disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), ECRLS, and emergency medicine development (EMD). After duplicates and those not meeting authorship equity and ethical review requirements were removed, articles were scored according to rubrics for original research (OR), review articles (RE), and GRAY. Those in the top 5% from any category were summarized and critiqued in narrative review.
resultsThere were 58,291 articles identified in the main search and 11,035 in the GRAY search. A total of 825 articles from the main search and 37 GRAY articles screened in and were scored. Fifty-five main search articles and one GRAY article were included after scoring, a 52.8% increase from 2022 despite <1% change in search volume. ECRLS remained the largest category (63%). As in previous years, articles frequently addressed emergencies in pediatrics (10 articles), trauma (9), prehospital care (8), maternal/neonatal care (6), education/training (6), disaster medicine (4), and airway/sedation management (4). A total of 3.5% of screened-in articles failed to meet GEMLR's new authorship equity and ethics standards.
conclusionsThe quantity and quality of GEM research continues to grow as measured by the GEMLR scoring system. A revised search string identified relevant GEM articles with broad application in global settings. New equity guidelines were successfully implemented. This review summarizes the highest quality current GEM research while providing evolving guidelines for best practices in performing this important and rapidly growing work.
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.