ReviewiScience2026
Operationalizing systemic multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment: Lessons from the MYRIAD-EU framework.
Review in iScience, 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multi-hazard and multi-risk contexts are increasingly recognized as central to disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation. While there is a recognized need to move beyond single-hazard and single-sector approaches, practical frameworks for systemic multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment remain scarce. In response, the Horizon 2020 Multi-hazard and sYstemic framework for enhancing Risk-Informed mAnagement and Decision-making in the E.U. (MYRIAD-EU) project developed a conceptual framework grounded in systemic risk research and structured around a six-step iterative process. This paper critically reflects on its implementation across five European pilot regions. Using project deliverables, a survey, and a focus group, we assess the framework's strengths and limitations and distil lessons learned from both its development and its practical application. These lessons learned are that the framework provides a valuable roadmap for structuring complexity, fostering dialogue with stakeholders, and distinguishing direct from indirect risks. However, challenges remain regarding data, capacity, tool integration, and communication. We conclude with recommendations for improving usability, institutionalization, and long-term uptake.
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.