a systematic review of iranian experiences in seismo-nephrology

conclusions a few eligible articles on seismo-nephrology were found in iran, and a limited number of current articles had poor or fair quality. as expected, the chaotic situation after mass disasters and the lack of documentation led to the loss of much important data on the diagnosis and management of victims. lessons learned from the current researches can be used as a valuable guide for future studies. results a total of 1256 non-duplicate articles were identified, but only 35 potentially relevant papers were screened. finally, 21 articles were found eligible and studied in details. in addition, one unpublished report was included. in the quality assessment, two articles had poor quality, and thus only 20 were finally included in the systematic review. no publication bias (coefficient = −2.28; 95% confidence interval: −6.17 - 1.78; p = 0.26) was observed among the included studies. context crush syndrome and its potentially life-threatening complications, such as acute kidney injury (aki), are one of the most important medical problems of disaster victims. however, today, many unanswered questions abound about the potential risk factors of crush syndrome, predictive factors of aki, proper amount of prophylactic hydration therapy, type of fluid, time of continuing fluid, intravenous versus oral hydration, etc. therefore, this study was designed to review the findings on iranian nephrologist experiences in diagnosis and management of traumatic rhabdomyolysis following the last two strong earthquakes of bam (2003) and manjil-rudbar (1990). evidence acquisition the study was conducted according to the moose reporting guideline. a literature review was conducted on the nephrologic aspects of earthquakes in iran. relevant articles were identified through a comprehensive search of online databases until 2014. the search was limited to articles studying the iranian population published in english and persian languages. the validated combination of mesh terms and key words was used. in addition, a manual search was run among the references of all articles that met the entrance criteria and previous reviews. only cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies were enrolled. two reviewers independently reviewed the eligible studies, and another reviewer contributed in case of a disagreement. basic information from each study was evaluated from the aspects of purpose and design, year of publication, methodology, main population, and source of data. the quality of the included studies was assessed using methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. two reviewers independently rated each paper as “good”, “fair”, or “poor”.