DEALING WITH DISASTER DATABASES – WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HEALTH AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS?

There is an increasing move towards facilitating the use of research findings in policy and practice relating to disaster risk reduction and response. One of the key issues is the quality of the evidence available to decision-makers. Disaster databases, as a key resource, represent a tremendous investment of effort and goodwill. However, their usefulness is limited by the variability in how they are compiled, differences in the output they produce, a general lack of comparability and standardization, and the fact that they might produce different results due to the ways they have been created or by chance. One possible solution to this, which has been applied successfully in evidence synthesis in health care is the systematic review. In this study we attempt to show how the systematic review process may be applied to information and data that is held in disaster databases. We demonstrate that systematic reviews of disaster databases can be achieved in a technical sense and the potential value of such reviews, but also discuss the practical difficulties that arise. Key words Systematic review, evidence, disaster database

[1]  Debarati Guha-Sapir,et al.  THE QUALITY AND ACCURACY OF DISASTER DATA A COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF THREE GLOBAL DATA SETS , 2002 .

[2]  A. Musani,et al.  Emergency preparedness and humanitarian action: the research deficit. Eastern Mediterranean Region perspective. , 2006, Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit.

[3]  C. Allen,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration: International activity within Cochrane Review Groups in the first decade of the twenty‐first century , 2011, Journal of evidence-based medicine.

[4]  L. Hedges,et al.  A Brief History of Research Synthesis , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[5]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Evidence Aid – from the Asian tsunami to the Wenchuan earthquake , 2008, Journal of evidence-based medicine.

[6]  D. Moher,et al.  The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[7]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[8]  S. Saha,et al.  A call for systematic reviews , 2004, Journal of general internal medicine.

[9]  J. Jesus,et al.  Ethical Considerations of Research in Disaster-Stricken Populations , 2009, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine.

[10]  Liz Tschoegl,et al.  An Analytical Review of Selected Data Sets on Natural Disasters and Impacts , 2006 .

[11]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Virginia Murray,et al.  Guidelines for Reports on Health Crises and Critical Health Events , 2010, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine.

[13]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide , 2005 .

[14]  F. G. Fowler,et al.  The Concise Oxford dictionary of current English : based on the Oxford English dictionary and its supplements , 1985 .

[15]  Matthias Egger,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[16]  P. Sainsbury,et al.  Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. , 2007, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[17]  D. Moher,et al.  Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

[18]  L E Quenemoen,et al.  Assessing disaster-attributed mortality: development and application of a definition and classification matrix. , 1999, International journal of epidemiology.

[19]  D. Bradt.  Evidence-Based Decision-Making (Part 1): Origins and Evolution in the Health Sciences , 2009, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine.

[20]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  D. O’Mathúna.  Conducting research in the aftermath of disasters: ethical considerations , 2010, Journal of evidence-based medicine.

[22]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[23]  P. Tugwell,et al.  OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology , 2007, Trials.

[24]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting , 2010, The Lancet.

[25]  M. Clarke,et al.  Evaluating maternity care: a core set of outcome measures. , 2007, Birth.

[26]  D. Guha-Sapir,et al.  Thirty years of natural disasters 1974-2003: The numbers , 2004 .

[27]  Michael J. Ryan,et al.  Communicable diseases in complex emergencies: impact and challenges , 2004, The Lancet.

[28]  Paula R Williamson,et al.  A Systematic Review of Studies That Aim to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials in Children , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[29]  R. Schuh,et al.  Validity of published outcome data concerning Anatomic Graduated Component total knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty register data , 2011, International Orthopaedics.

[30]  Ilan Kelman,et al.  Operational Ethics for Disaster Research , 2005, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.