Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective This research aims to identify the global epidemiological profile of disaster-related injuries over the last 50 years and examine their distribution across natural, technological, and human-caused disasters. Methods A systematic review of literature published between 1970 and 2025 was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The search strategy included terms related to disasters, injury, trauma, and epidemiological patterns within a PICo (Population, Interest, Context) framework. Results A total of 100 studies reporting quantitative data on casualties and injury typology were included. Findings were synthesized through structured quantitative synthesis of event-level disaster injury data. Descriptive statistics summarized injury burden, while exploratory comparative analyses examined injury patterns across disaster categories. Lacerations and open wounds were the leading cause of morbidity, with a mean of 4346 cases per event, accounting for 45% to 55% of recorded injuries. These were followed by fractures and dislocations, with a mean of 1643 cases per event, and sprains, with a mean of 523 cases per event. Most traumatic injuries were common across high-energy disasters. Exploratory comparative analyses suggested mechanism-specific patterns, with ocular injuries predominating in human-caused disasters, largely due to shrapnel-related trauma, while burns were more characteristic of technological disasters and volcanic events. Conclusion Disaster-related injury burden is highly uneven, with a small number of catastrophic events accounting for a disproportionately large share of victims. Soft tissue and musculoskeletal injuries dominate healthcare demand, together comprising 60% to 75% of treated morbidity. Mechanism-specific injury profiles may support efficient disaster health response planning and preparedness of specialized clinical teams.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
González et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: