ReviewJournal of epidemiology and global health2026
Risk Assessment Tools for Mass Gatherings: a Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of epidemiology and global health, 2026. 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
introductionEvents with a high population density, commonly referred to as mass gatherings (MGs), necessitate additional precautions in the areas of situational management, safety, and public health. Various tools for risk assessment at these events have been developed to meet this requirement. Nonetheless, the necessity for a comprehensive review is highlighted by the variety, dispersion, and variations in the structure and context of application of these tools.
methodsThis study was conducted as a narrative review following the general principles of high-quality narrative synthesis. The reporting structure was informed by the SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and authoritative organizational documents (e.g., WHO), complemented by manual reference screening. Publications that explicitly describe or evaluate such tools were chosen, and key data on their development, features, and applications were systematically gathered. A narrative synthesis and thematic analysis were employed to compare their strengths, limitations, and practical considerations, which were summarized in a comparative table.
findingsSix key tools were identified, including the World Health Organization (WHO) tool, the Jeddah tool, the Indian tool (MGRAT), the Swedish tool (MAGRAT), and the SALEM framework in Saudi Arabia. These tools encompassed a range of approaches tailored to resource-limited settings, including multi-hazard assessment, Reputational Risk analysis, and interagency collaboration. Global tools, like those offered by the WHO, are comprehensive and adaptable. Meanwhile, regional tools such as SALEM and Jeddah have been effectively utilized in specific cultural and religious contexts. However, gaps exist in the coverage of various events, and there is a lack of integration of new technologies in low-income countries.
conclusionRisk assessment tools for large gatherings require further development and standardization, particularly for specific contexts and emerging threats. Combining localized and global tools and leveraging technologies such as artificial intelligence and real-time data could be an effective way to enhance the practical assessment of risks.
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.