1. Review of all hazard disaster databases sub-committee
UN-ISDR Science and Technical Committee
Review of all hazard disaster databases sub-committee
Virginia Murray member of UNISDR S&TC and Chair of sub-committee for UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)
EM-DAT Technical Advisory Group Meeting
New York, October 2009

3. Scientific and Technical Committee
advises the Global Platform
advocates for and guides policy and actions related to scientific and technical issues within the ISDR System, for informed decision making and public awareness
Science is considered here in its widest sense to include the natural, environmental, social, economic, health and engineering sciences, and the term "technical" includes relevant matters of technology, engineering practice and implementation.

4. Scientific and Technical Committee
to provide advice & to make recommendations on priorities for scientific & technical attention by ISDR System
to propose & organize specific enquiries to investigate & report on priority matters
to advise on relevant elements of Joint Work Programme
to provide guidance to scientific & technical work of ISDR thematic partnerships
to stimulate dialogue & innovation including promotion of good practice
to report annually to the Chair of the ISDR System on matters within its mandate

5. Scientific and Technical Committee
First meeting January 2008
Second meeting October 2008
Third Meeting June 2009

8. Chairman’s conclusion – point 5
The Global Platform highlighted the importance of education and sharing knowledge, including indigenous and traditional knowledge, and ensuring easy and systematic access to best practice and tools and international standards, tailored to specific sectors, and to necessary cross-border data.
It also stressed the necessity for investment in research and development and higher education, and for the more effective integration of science and technical information into policy and practice.

10. Scientific and Technical Committee
Subcommittee on Data was established, comprising Prof. Murray (Chair), Dr. Ammann, Prof. Ghafory-Ashtiany, Prof. Ogallo, Prof. McBean, Dr. Takara and Prof. Wenger, and will develop draft Terms of Reference for initial scoping work

11. AIMS
To understand how data/information relating to all risks, hazards and disaster management is collected, held and analysed
To facilitate the use of high quality information by decision makers at all levels e.g. politicians, emergency planners, healthcare professionals and scientists

12. Cochrane reviews
Cochrane reviews[i] report that it is a difficult task for any professional practitioner to keep up-to-date with relevant evidence in their field of interest.
major bibliographic databases cover less than half world's literature and are biased towards English-language publications; textbooks, editorials and reviews that have not been prepared systematically may be unreliable; much evidence is unpublished, but unpublished evidence may be important; and more easily accessible research reports tend to exaggerate the benefits of interventions.
A need to develop a checklist for assessing quality of databases and to consider methods that could be used for assessing database content scientifically
[i] The Cochrane Collaboration
An introduction to Cochrane reviews and The Cochrane Library.

13. Evidence based medicine
Step 1: Formulate a question
Step 2: Search for the evidence
Step 3: Appraise the evidence
Step 4: Apply

14. Hierarchy of research evidence in health care

15. Downstream data limitations are transferred down the chain
REPORTING SOURCE
DISASTER DATABASE
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

16. Reporting Source
Issues with primary data have already been commented on[i]. Disaster databases are only ever going to be as good as reporting sources they rely on:
Subject to bias (agenda of data collector)
Loose definition of people affected
Methods for evaluating damages
Geographical location
[i] Guha-Sapir D et al. Data on Disasters: Easier Said Than Done. Disaster & Development 2006;1 (1): 155

17. Disaster Databases/ Papers
Lack of good quality data
Lack of transparency in reporting
Possible that validation undertaken but not possible for reviewer to assess
Lack of identification of sources (so low reproducibility of data and difficult to assess validity of sources)
No sub-group analysis possible due to data constraints

18. Evidence synthesis
No ‘shortlist’ or comprehensive database of databases/ directory of databases such as the Directory of Clinical Databases (DoCDat) which can be searched
Are there any bibliographic databases specific to disaster field?

19. Where are we? At the start but thinking in logical steps
Dr Ishani Kar-Purkayastha Specialist Registrar in Public Health
Professor Mike Clarke, Director of UK Cochrane Centre
Next telephone conference of the sub-committee next week