ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Evaluation of patients who presented to the emergency department of a state hospital following the earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş/Pazarcık and Elbistan, Türkiye.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to analyze patients who presented to the emergency department of a state hospital following the devastating earthquakes of February 6, 2023, centered in Kahramanmaraş and to contribute updated evidence to the literature.
methodsIn this retrospective study, data were collected on patients presenting to the emergency department between February 6 and 13, 2023. Variables included demographic characteristics, patterns of presentation, province of origin, time elapsed since the event, chief complaints, clinical findings, treatments administered in the emergency department and during hospitalization, and patient outcomes. Comparisons were made between traumatic and nontraumatic cases, as well as between patients who arrived walk-in and those transported by ambulance.
resultsA total of 652 patients were evaluated. Of these, 58.6% were female, with a mean age of 30.87 ± 22.80 years. Most patients (84.2%) were discharged. The most frequent injury types were soft tissue injuries (31.7%), crush injuries (17.3%), and rhabdomyolysis (10.5%). Among patients admitted to the intensive care unit, 86.4% had traumatic injuries. Two-thirds (66.7%) of deceased patients were also traumatic cases. Ambulance transport was recorded in 24.8% of traumatic patients compared with 4.9% of nontraumatic patients. Notably, none of the traumatic patients transported by ambulance were discharged; 72.4% were hospitalized, 25% required intensive care, and 2.6% died.
conclusionUnlike previous studies that focused mainly on epicentral hospitals, this study provides novel insights by evaluating both traumatic and nontraumatic patient presentations in a nonepicentral, secondary-care hospital located far from the disaster zone. This perspective highlights the delayed but significant healthcare burden in peripheral hospitals, which has been largely overlooked in the literature.
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.