ReviewAmerican journal of medicine open2026
Emergency medical rescue in debris flow disaster.
Review in American journal of medicine open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Debris flow is a sudden and destructive natural disaster that poses serious threats to human life and property. Much attention has been paid to its environmental and infrastructural impact but the health risks and emergency medical needs associated with debris flow are often overlooked. Objectives: This review aims to examine the causes, characteristics, and health implications of debris flow disasters, with a focus on evaluating emergency medical rescue efforts. It seeks to identify current gaps in disaster response and highlight emerging innovations that can enhance medical preparedness and intervention, and inform future research priorities as well as operational planning and policy development. Discussion: Existing studies have mainly concentrated on debris flow prediction and prevention, while medical rescue strategies remain underdeveloped. Major challenges include inadequate medical resources, poor coordination among response teams, and technological limitations in affected areas. Nonetheless, promising advancements such as drone-based surveillance, mobile medical units, and portable diagnostic equipment are gradually being integrated into disaster response systems. These innovations offer improved situational awareness and faster deployment of care but require further refinement and integration into national disaster response frameworks. Conclusions: Improving medical rescue in debris flow disasters requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach. Future efforts should aim to develop scalable, field-ready rescue models that prioritize human health and ensure timely, efficient medical care in debris flow emergencies. These findings also provide operationally oriented evidence to support protocol standardization and policy design for disaster medical response systems.
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.