Global Emergency Medicine: A Review of the Literature From 2015

Torben K. Becker*, Bhakti Hansoti, Susan Bartels, Mark Bisanzo, Gabrielle A. Jacquet, Kevin Lunney, Regan Marsh, Maxwell Osei-Ampofo, Indi Trehan, Christopher Lam, Adam C. Levine, R. Eleanor Anderson, Miriam Aschkenasy, Miriam Aschkenasy, Kamna S. Balhara, Mark Bisanzo, Michael Boyd, Jennifer Chan, Robert Myles Dickason, Mark HauswaldAlison S. Hayward, Braden Hexom, Emily House, Alexander Jenson, Alexis Kearney, Devin Mansfield Keefe, Sean Kivlehan, Heather E. Machen, Jacqueline Mahal, Daniel J. Millikan, Payal Modi, Benjamin Nicholson, Najeeb Rahman, Megan Rybarczyk, Erika D. Schroeder, Anand Selvam, David Silvestri, David Silvestri, the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) Group

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations


Objectives: The Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) conducts an annual search of peer-reviewed and gray literature relevant to global emergency medicine (EM) to identify, review, and disseminate the most important new research in this field to a global audience of academics and clinical practitioners. Methods: This year 12,435 articles written in six languages were identified by our search. These articles were distributed among 20 reviewers for initial screening based on their relevance to the field of global EM. An additional two reviewers searched the gray literature. A total of 723 articles were deemed appropriate by at least one reviewer and approved by their editor for formal scoring of overall quality and importance. Two independent reviewers scored all articles. Results: A total of 723 articles met our predetermined inclusion criteria and underwent full review. Sixty percent were categorized as emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), 17% as EM development (EMD), and 23% as disaster and humanitarian response (DHR). Twenty-four articles received scores of 18.5 or higher out of a maximum score 20 and were selected for formal summary and critique. Inter-rater reliability between reviewers gave an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.71 (95% confidence interval = 0.66 to 0.75). Studies and reviews with a focus on infectious diseases, trauma, and the diagnosis and treatment of diseases common in resource-limited settings represented the majority of articles selected for final review. Conclusions: In 2015, there were almost twice as many articles found by our search compared to the 2014 review. The number of EMD articles increased, while the number ECRLS articles decreased. The number of DHR articles remained stable. As in prior years, the majority of articles focused on infectious diseases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1183-1191
Number of pages9
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Global Emergency Medicine: A Review of the Literature From 2015'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this