Military medicine · 2026
A T2 Translational Science Modified Delphi Study: Management of Patients With Embedded Unexploded Ordnance in Low-Resource Settings.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weinstein Eric S, Mather Jacques, Delp Drew, Tschida Sherri, Murphy Sean, Ratnayake Amila, Amoroso Paul, Tertyshnyi Serhii, Stewart Barclay, Wild Hannah B H
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Actors in conflict, those in asymmetric warfare, conducting criminal activity or participating in paramilitary training activities may possess explosive ordnance. For various reasons this ordnance can misfire resulting in failure to detonate and become impaled or embedded in those near an intended target. The management of the patient with an impaled or embedded unexploded ordnance (eUXO) is a high impact event with the potential to cause death of those in proximity and destruction of the health care facility. The probability of this event is low with less than 50 cases reported in the literature. The objective of this study is to use a modified Delphi approach to produce statements to develop treatment guidelines of the eUXO patient in low-resource settings without explosive ordnance disposal team (EOD) assets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three statements were derived from authoritative texts and a PRISMA-Scoping review through an iterative process by the authors. Included experts rated their agreement with each statement on a 7-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1. Statements attaining consensus after the first and subsequent rounds moved to the final report. Statements that did not attain consensus moved to the next round and this process repeated for 3 rounds. The remaining statements did not attain consensus. The University of South Florida Institutional Review Board determined that this study met the criteria for exemption.
RESULTS: After the 37 experts first, 35 experts second, and 33 experts third round, 29 statements attained consensus, and 24 statements did not attain consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: Although agreement was reached on key safety, transport, and training principles, uncertainties remain on how best to weigh clinical priorities to manage an eUXO patient to reduce the risk of detonation without available EOD assets in low-resource settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three statements were derived from authoritative texts and a PRISMA-Scoping review through an iterative process by the authors. Included experts rated their agreement with each statement on a 7-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1. Statements attaining consensus after the first and subsequent rounds moved to the final report. Statements that did not attain consensus moved to the next round and this process repeated for 3 rounds. The remaining statements did not attain consensus. The University of South Florida Institutional Review Board determined that this study met the criteria for exemption.
RESULTS: After the 37 experts first, 35 experts second, and 33 experts third round, 29 statements attained consensus, and 24 statements did not attain consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: Although agreement was reached on key safety, transport, and training principles, uncertainties remain on how best to weigh clinical priorities to manage an eUXO patient to reduce the risk of detonation without available EOD assets in low-resource settings.