ReviewInternational journal of emergency medicine2025
Special care services delivery at disaster scenes: a systematic review.
Review in International journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundDisasters create strain on health systems and require significant preparedness to reduce mortality and morbidity. Special care services; e.g. Advanced Life Support, critical care interventions (intubation; vasopressor therapy) and point of care diagnostics (ultrasound) may be provided in disaster-settings, although actual use of services is dependent on logistical, operational and contextual issues. This systematic review identifies an important gap to understand the effectiveness, feasibility and barriers to, special care services.The overall aim of this systematic review is to synthesise global evidence on the evidence-based practices and improve disaster response.
methodsThis systematic review utilized PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature from the time of inception of the different databases to January 2025, from which a total of 4465 records were identified. After a thorough, organized review of the identified records based on our exclusion criteria and inclusion criteria, a total of 31 articles were retained. The systematic review followed PRISMA 2020, and searched for studies on special care services in a pre-hospital disaster setting, and included primary research and review articles that described advanced interventions, and which had no time restrictions on date of publication. Articles that were waived from the cost of in-app purchasing were excluded due to limited resources and could limit the studies that were included. Quality assessment using STROBE, SANRA and checklists, along with the categories of findings using a thematic content analysis based on the dimensions of prehospital care.
resultsThematic analysis revealed six broad themes: Patient Care and Clinical Management, Operational Efficiency and Logistics, Personnel and Training, Technology and Equipment, System Coordination and Preparedness, and Ethical and Contextual Considerations. Advanced functions like REBOA, ultrasound and AI-related diagnostics improved survival and neurological outcomes, However, they were restricted due to limited resources, lack of training, and lack of coordination, particularly in low resource contexts.
conclusionsThe reviewed literature demonstrated that critical-care services such as Advanced Life Support (ALS), intubation, and ultrasound resulted in improved morbidity and mortality outcomes in disaster settings but were limited due to resource constraints, lack of training and inadequate coordination all the more pertinent to low-resource settings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.