ReviewCureus2024
An Overview of Appropriate Medical Practice and Preparedness in Radiation Emergency Response.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiomitigators: Breakthroughs in Post-Radiation Recovery.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Nuclear Medicine in IRAQ: From a Pioneering Past to Future Progress.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Critical deficits in CBRNE preparedness: A nationwide assessment of Jordanian healthcare providers' knowledge, skills, and training gaps.SAGE open medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Radiation emergencies involving high doses of nuclear radiation pose significant risks from exposure to ionizing radiation in various scenarios. These situations include transportation accidents involving radioactive materials, occupational exposure, nuclear detonations, dirty bombs, and nuclear power plant accidents. In addition to the immediate risks of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) and related diseases, long-term exposure can increase the risk of other health issues such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. Vulnerable populations, including pregnant women and children, face particular concern due to potential impacts on their health and the health of unborn babies. The severity of ARS depends on several factors such as radiation dose, quality, dose rate, exposure uniformity, and individual biological responses. Bioindicators are biological responses or markers that help assess the severity and effects of radiation exposure on an individual. Bioindicators can include physical symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, or laboratory tests such as changes in blood cell counts and gene expression that can help in assessing and treating exposed individuals. Additionally, early prodromal symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhea, and erythema can provide important clues for diagnosis and treatment. Developing a comprehensive plan for radiation emergencies is vital for safeguarding public health, infrastructure, and the environment. First responders play a critical role in establishing safety perimeters, triage, and coordination with various stakeholders. Education and training are essential for medical personnel and the public. This article provides general recommendations and identifies challenges to effective radiation emergency preparedness and response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.