ArticleBMJ public health2024
Adjustment of medical standards in disaster, crises and war: a scoping review of the literature.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Adaptation of healthcare systems to disasters, crises and war : Resilient, robust and secure hospitals and dealing with medical standards].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- [Hospital care in times of crisis : Are German hospitals prepared for military conflicts?]Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Article
- [Anesthesiology as an integrative cross-sectional discipline of clinical resilience-What hospitals must anticipate now for high-load operations].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Currently, there is a lack of evidence on how societies and healthcare systems cope with disrupting situations like disasters, crisis and wars. The aim of the scoping review was to map evidence to the following questions: Is the fact of possible overwhelming of healthcare systems accepted or denied? Are medical standards adjusted? Are dedicated contingency concepts applied? Are there triage concepts for allocating scarce resources? Methods: We conducted and reported the scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A review protocol was published a priori in the Open Science Framework. Medline via PubMed was used as data source. We considered reviews, systematic reviews, guidelines and case-control studies in English or German as eligible for this scoping review, regardless of publication year or publication status. We searched Medline via PubMed up to 8 March 2023, and updated on 20 July 2023. Title/Abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction were performed in a dual-reviewer mode. Results: A total of 2213 publications were identified and 71 publications were finally included. Of these, 87% generally accepted the possibility that the capacity of the healthcare system would be overwhelmed. A structured change of medical standards was reported in 89%. 51% deployed the crisis standard of care concept. International accepted guidelines for maintaining medical care do not exist. There is no common understanding of the medical care status with regard to the standards. There is a lack of political, legal and ethical agreement on the subject of triage. Conclusion: Future research must clarify which concepts and measures are suitable for building a robust healthcare system in order to maintain medical care according to accepted standards for as long as possible. Algorithms for the allocation of scarce resources must be defined in advance to enable medical staff to act with legal certainty in a crisis.
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.