ArticleHealth science reports2025
Enhancing Emergency Preparedness: A Call to Incorporate Postexposure Prophylaxis in Mass Casualty Protocols.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. 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.
- Developing a conceptual framework to facilitate inter-organizational partnership in disasters and public health emergencies.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) present significant challenges to emergency response systems, often overwhelming healthcare resources. This article highlights the critical role of integrating postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) into emergency protocols to mitigate immediate and secondary health risks occurring due to mass casualty. The aim is to underscore the importance of PEP in MCI management and advocate for its systematic incorporation into emergency preparedness and response. Methods: This is a perspective article drawing upon existing literature, guidelines from organizations such as UNAIDS, and expert opinion to synthesize the importance of PEP in the context of MCIs. It discusses the rationale for PEP, challenges in its implementation, particularly in resource-limited settings, and proposes strategies for its integration into emergency protocols. Results: The analysis underscores that prompt PEP administration significantly reduces the risk of bloodborne pathogen transmission following potential exposure during MCIs. Effective MCI response necessitates hospital preparedness, robust Emergency Medical Services (EMS), interagency collaboration, and trained personnel. The potential for HIV transmission in crash emergencies is often overlooked, highlighting the urgent need for PEP inclusion in emergency protocols. Key recommendations include establishing robust surveillance systems, training first responders, ensuring the availability of personal protective equipment and point-of-care test kits, establishing blood bank networks, and ensuring widespread access to PEP with a low threshold for its administration. Conclusion: Integrating PEP into emergency response strategies is imperative for enhancing the resilience and preparedness of healthcare systems, especially in resource-constrained settings. This proactive approach can significantly reduce morbidity, mortality, and the public health burden associated with infectious disease transmission following MCIs. Therefore, the systematic incorporation of PEP into emergency protocols, supported by interagency collaboration, training, and resource allocation, is strongly recommended.
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.