Mass Casualty Incident PreparednessMCIPHERNCT07838441
Mass-Casualty Incident - Prehospital Emergency Response
A study testing Standard Mass-Casualty Incident Curriculum, MCIPHER mnemonic pre-brief and Tabletop Simulation in people with Mass Casualty Incident Preparedness and Simulation-Based Medical Education, run by Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences at 1 site in United Arab Emirates.
Trial summary
The goal of this study was to learn whether the MCIPHER memory aid could help first-year resident doctors manage a simulated mass-casualty incident. MCIPHER organizes the response into five phases: command, triage, treatment, transport, and closure. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Mass Casualty Incident Preparedness, Simulation-Based Medical Education
- What is being tested?
- Standard Mass-Casualty Incident Curriculum, MCIPHER mnemonic pre-brief and Tabletop Simulation
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 25 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Arab Emirates
- Study dates
- 4 Nov 2025to 18 Nov 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Current postgraduate year-1 resident in emergency medicine, trauma surgery, general surgery, or anaesthesiology
- Able to provide informed consent
- Available to complete all study components on the simulation day
Who cannot join
- Previous exposure to MCIPHER-guided training
- Previous participation in a structured mass-casualty incident tabletop simulation
- Unable to complete the pre-training and post-training assessments
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United Arab Emirates1 site
Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences (MBRU)
Dubai, 00000
About this study
Official title: M-CIPHER in Action: A 3D Tabletop-Based Validation
The goal of this study was to learn whether the MCIPHER memory aid could help first-year resident doctors manage a simulated mass-casualty incident. MCIPHER organizes the response into five phases: command, triage, treatment, transport, and closure.
Twenty-five postgraduate year-1 residents from emergency medicine, trauma surgery, general surgery, and anaesthesiology took part. All participants completed the same two-week course on mass-casualty incident response. Researchers then placed participants into one of two groups using a non-random method. The control group completed a three-dimensional tabletop simulation after the standard course. The MCIPHER group received an additional structured briefing on MCIPHER immediately before completing the same simulation.
Read more
The main questions were:
Did MCIPHER affect overall team performance? Did MCIPHER affect how quickly teams completed key actions? Did MCIPHER affect how accurately teams triaged simulated casualties?
Researchers also measured participants' confidence, knowledge, attitudes, views of the debrief, and views of MCIPHER. Each team managed the same simulated incident involving 25 casualties. The exercise lasted about 60 minutes and was followed by a structured debrief lasting about 20 minutes.
Read the detailed description
This completed proof-of-concept study used a quasi-experimental, non-randomized, two-group design. All participants completed a standardized two-week didactic curriculum on mass-casualty incident response. Group A completed the first tabletop exercise without exposure to MCIPHER. Group B received an additional structured MCIPHER pre-brief immediately before the first exercise.
Each group formed one team and independently managed the same three-dimensional tabletop scenario involving 25 simulated casualties. A game master controlled scenario progression and provided neutral prompts only when a team stalled for at least 30 seconds after a cue. The active exercise lasted approximately 60 minutes and was followed by an approximately 20-minute structured debrief. Only each team's first exercise was used for the between-group comparison to avoid carryover learning effects. Group A later received access to the MCIPHER educational content, but later performance data were not included in the analysis reported in this record.
- Being tested
- Standard Mass-Casualty Incident Curriculum, MCIPHER mnemonic pre-brief, Tabletop Simulation
- Keywords
- MCIPHER mnemonic framework, Mass casualty incident, Disaster medicine, Emergency preparedness, Tabletop simulation, Simulation-based medical education, Cognitive aid, Triage, Postgraduate medical education
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Standard Mass-Casualty Incident CurriculumOther
All participants completed a standardized two-week didactic curriculum on mass-casualty incident response. The curriculum covered introduction to mass-casualty incident management, response activation and scene setup, triage and decision-making, treatment and resource allocation, evacuation and transport, and response conclusion and recovery.
MCIPHER mnemonic pre-briefOther
Participants in the MCIPHER group received structured pre-brief immediately before the tabletop exercise. The pre-brief introduced MCIPHER as a cognitive roadmap for sequencing and prioritizing mass-casualty incident response. The framework consists of five sequential phases: C.O.M.M.A.N.D. for command and scene management, S.O.R.T. for triage, C.A.R.E. for treatment, M.O.V.E. for transport, and C.L.E.A.R. for closure and debrief.
Tabletop SimulationOther
Participants completed a standardized three-dimensional tabletop simulation involving 25 simulated casualties. The active exercise lasted approximately 60 minutes and was followed by an approximately 20-minute structured debrief.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Standard MCI Training Plus MCIPHER | Experimental | Participants completed the standardized two-week mass-casualty incident curriculum and received an additional structured MCIPHER pre-brief immediately before completing the first three-dimensional tabletop exercise. Receives: Other: Standard Mass-Casualty Incident Curriculum; Other: MCIPHER mnemonic pre-brief; Other: Tabletop Simulation |
| Standard MCI Training | Active comparator | Participants completed the standardized two-week mass-casualty incident curriculum and then completed the first three-dimensional tabletop exercise without MCIPHER. This arm served as the active control for the initial between-group comparison. Receives: Other: Standard Mass-Casualty Incident Curriculum; Other: Tabletop Simulation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percentage Team Performance Score During the First Tabletop Exercise
Each team's performance was assessed across 20 predefined critical actions spanning command, triage, treatment, transport, and closure. Each action was scored as 1.0 for full completion in the correct sequence and within the timing window without prompting, 0.5 for partial, delayed, incomplete, or prompted completion, and 0.0 for an action that was not observed, incorrect, or out of sequence. Scores were summed, divided by 20, and multiplied by 100. Scores range from 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate better team performance.
Measured: During the first tabletop exercise, approximately 60 minutes
Percentage Operational Timeliness Index During the First Tabletop Exercise
The number of 20 predefined critical actions completed within their benchmark timing windows, allowing a plus or minus 2-minute tolerance, was divided by 20 and multiplied by 100. Scores range from 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate that a larger proportion of critical actions were completed on time.
Measured: During the first tabletop exercise, approximately 60 minutes
Percentage Initial Triage Accuracy Score During the First Tabletop Exercise
The number of 25 simulated casualties assigned the correct initial triage category compared with the predefined gold-standard category was divided by 25 and multiplied by 100. Scores range from 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate greater initial triage accuracy.
Measured: At completion of initial triage during the first tabletop exercise, within approximately 60 minutes
Secondary outcomes (5)
Mean Change From Pre-training to Post-training in Composite Self-Reported Confidence Score
Self-reported confidence was assessed using nine items scored from 1 to 5 and covering mass-casualty incident command, triage, treatment, transport, and communication. The composite score was the mean of the nine items and ranges from 1 to 5; higher scores indicate greater confidence. Change was calculated as the post-training score minus the pre-training score.
Measured: Immediately before the tabletop simulation (Baseline) and immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Change From Pre-training to Post-training in Mass-Casualty Incident Attitude Item Scores
Attitudes were assessed using four individual items scored from 1 to 5. The items assessed perceived preparedness and attitudes toward mass-casualty incident training. Each item was analyzed separately. Higher scores indicate stronger agreement with the item. Change for each item was calculated as the post-training score minus the pre-training score.
Measured: Immediately before the tabletop simulation (Baseline) and immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Mean Post-training Debrief Experience Score
Debrief experience was assessed using seven items scored from 1 to 5. The items assessed the perceived quality, realism, and usefulness of the tabletop exercise and structured debrief. The composite score was the mean of the seven items and ranges from 1 to 5; higher scores indicate a more favorable debrief experience.
Measured: Immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Mean Post-training MCIPHER Perception Score
Participants in the MCIPHER group completed four items scored from 1 to 5 that assessed the perceived usefulness, clarity, and applicability of the MCIPHER framework. The composite score was the mean of the four items and ranges from 1 to 5; higher scores indicate a more favorable perception of MCIPHER.
Measured: Immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Percentage Correct on the Post-training Knowledge Test
Knowledge was assessed using a 30-item binary test covering mass-casualty incident management concepts aligned with the didactic curriculum. The number of correct responses was divided by 30 and multiplied by 100. Scores range from 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate greater post-training knowledge. Different test versions were administered to the two groups, so results were summarized within each group rather than directly compared between groups.
Measured: Immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Sep 2026
- Study start4 Nov 2025
- Primary completion18 Nov 2025
- Study completion18 Nov 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Mass Casualty Incident PreparednessStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants were assigned to one of two groups for the initial comparison. Group A received the shared curriculum and completed the first tabletop exercise without MCIPHER. Group B received the shared curriculum plus a structured MCIPHER pre-brief before the first exercise. Only each team's first tabletop performance was used for the between-group analysis to avoid carryover learning effects. Group A later received access to the MCIPHER educational content; later performance data were not included in the analysis reported in this record
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 25 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Dubai Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Azza Yousif, Dubai Health
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07838441
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- MCIPHER 01
- Other IDs
- MBRU/RGS/2024/L-51
- Acronym
- MCIPHER
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 12 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 24 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-identified individual participant data underlying the results reported in the publication will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Publications
1. Suda AJ, Franke A, Hertwig M, Gooßen K. Management of mass casualty incidents: a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg [Internet]. 2025 Dec [cited 2025 Jul 24];51(1). Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00068-024-02727-0 2. Tabletop Tests: Low-Cost, High-Impact Emergency Planning [Internet]. AlertMedia. [cited 2025 Jul 24]. Available from: https://www.alertmedia.com/blog/tabletop-test/ 3. On, Above, and Beyond: Taking Tabletops to the Third Dimension. In: Human-Computer Interaction Series [Internet]. London: Springer London; 2010 [cited 2025 Jul 24]. p. 277-99. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-84996-113-4_12 4. Chou WK, Lin CH. Teaching Senior Medical Students Mass Casualty Incident Management by 3D Tabletop Exercise without Lecture: Increase Students' Knowledge and Motivation. Prehosp Disaster med. 2023 May;38(S1):s22-3.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- M-CIPHER in Action: A 3D Tabletop-Based Validation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07838441
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MCIPHER / MCIPHER 01
- Keywords
- MCIPHER mnemonic framework, Mass casualty incident, Disaster medicine, Emergency preparedness, Tabletop simulation, Simulation-based medical education, Cognitive aid, Triage
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 25 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Dubai Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
- Study start
- 4 Nov 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 18 Nov 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 18 Nov 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 24 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this study was to learn whether the MCIPHER memory aid could help first-year resident doctors manage a simulated mass-casualty incident. MCIPHER organizes the response into five phases: command, triage, treatment, transport, and closure.
Twenty-five postgraduate year-1 residents from emergency medicine, trauma surgery, general surgery, and anaesthesiology took part. All participants completed the same two-week course on mass-casualty incident response. Researchers then placed participants into one of two groups using a non-random method. The control group completed a three-dimensional tabletop simulation after the standard course. The MCIPHER group received an additional structured briefing on MCIPHER immediately before completing the same simulation.
The main questions were:
Did MCIPHER affect overall team performance? Did MCIPHER affect how quickly teams completed key actions? Did MCIPHER affect how accurately teams triaged simulated casualties?
Researchers also measured participants' confidence, knowledge, attitudes, views of the debrief, and views of MCIPHER. Each team managed the same simulated incident involving 25 casualties. The exercise lasted about 60 minutes and was followed by a structured debrief lasting about 20 minutes.
Detailed description
This completed proof-of-concept study used a quasi-experimental, non-randomized, two-group design. All participants completed a standardized two-week didactic curriculum on mass-casualty incident response. Group A completed the first tabletop exercise without exposure to MCIPHER. Group B received an additional structured MCIPHER pre-brief immediately before the first exercise.
Each group formed one team and independently managed the same three-dimensional tabletop scenario involving 25 simulated casualties. A game master controlled scenario progression and provided neutral prompts only when a team stalled for at least 30 seconds after a cue. The active exercise lasted approximately 60 minutes and was followed by an approximately 20-minute structured debrief. Only each team's first exercise was used for the between-group comparison to avoid carryover learning effects. Group A later received access to the MCIPHER educational content, but later performance data were not included in the analysis reported in this record.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Participants were assigned to one of two groups for the initial comparison. Group A received the shared curriculum and completed the first tabletop exercise without MCIPHER. Group B received the shared curriculum plus a structured MCIPHER pre-brief before the first exercise. Only each team's first tabletop performance was used for the between-group analysis to avoid carryover learning effects. Group A later received access to the MCIPHER educational content; later performance data were not included in the analysis reported in this record
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Standard MCI Training Plus MCIPHER | Experimental | Other: Standard Mass-Casualty Incident Curriculum, Other: MCIPHER mnemonic pre-brief, Other: Tabletop SimulationParticipants completed the standardized two-week mass-casualty incident curriculum and received an additional structured MCIPHER pre-brief immediately before completing the first three-dimensional tabletop exercise. |
| Standard MCI Training | Active comparator | Other: Standard Mass-Casualty Incident Curriculum, Other: Tabletop SimulationParticipants completed the standardized two-week mass-casualty incident curriculum and then completed the first three-dimensional tabletop exercise without MCIPHER. This arm served as the active control for the initial between-group comparison. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Current postgraduate year-1 resident in emergency medicine, trauma surgery, general surgery, or anaesthesiology
- Able to provide informed consent
- Available to complete all study components on the simulation day
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Previous exposure to MCIPHER-guided training
- Previous participation in a structured mass-casualty incident tabletop simulation
- Unable to complete the pre-training and post-training assessments
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Standard Mass-Casualty Incident CurriculumAll participants completed a standardized two-week didactic curriculum on mass-casualty incident response. The curriculum covered introduction to mass-casualty incident management, response activation and scene setup, triage and decision-making, treatment and resource allocation, evacuation and transport, and response conclusion and recovery. | Other | Standard MCI Training, Standard MCI Training Plus MCIPHER |
| MCIPHER mnemonic pre-briefParticipants in the MCIPHER group received structured pre-brief immediately before the tabletop exercise. The pre-brief introduced MCIPHER as a cognitive roadmap for sequencing and prioritizing mass-casualty incident response. The framework consists of five sequential phases: C.O.M.M.A.N.D. for command and scene management, S.O.R.T. for triage, C.A.R.E. for treatment, M.O.V.E. for transport, and C.L.E.A.R. for closure and debrief. | Other | Standard MCI Training Plus MCIPHER |
| Tabletop SimulationParticipants completed a standardized three-dimensional tabletop simulation involving 25 simulated casualties. The active exercise lasted approximately 60 minutes and was followed by an approximately 20-minute structured debrief. | Other | Standard MCI Training, Standard MCI Training Plus MCIPHER |
Primary outcome
Percentage Team Performance Score During the First Tabletop Exercise
Time frame: During the first tabletop exercise, approximately 60 minutes
Each team's performance was assessed across 20 predefined critical actions spanning command, triage, treatment, transport, and closure. Each action was scored as 1.0 for full completion in the correct sequence and within the timing window without prompting, 0.5 for partial, delayed, incomplete, or prompted completion, and 0.0 for an action that was not observed, incorrect, or out of sequence. Scores were summed, divided by 20, and multiplied by 100. Scores range from 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate better team performance.
Percentage Operational Timeliness Index During the First Tabletop Exercise
Time frame: During the first tabletop exercise, approximately 60 minutes
The number of 20 predefined critical actions completed within their benchmark timing windows, allowing a plus or minus 2-minute tolerance, was divided by 20 and multiplied by 100. Scores range from 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate that a larger proportion of critical actions were completed on time.
Percentage Initial Triage Accuracy Score During the First Tabletop Exercise
Time frame: At completion of initial triage during the first tabletop exercise, within approximately 60 minutes
The number of 25 simulated casualties assigned the correct initial triage category compared with the predefined gold-standard category was divided by 25 and multiplied by 100. Scores range from 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate greater initial triage accuracy.
5 secondary outcomes
Mean Change From Pre-training to Post-training in Composite Self-Reported Confidence Score
Time frame: Immediately before the tabletop simulation (Baseline) and immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Change From Pre-training to Post-training in Mass-Casualty Incident Attitude Item Scores
Time frame: Immediately before the tabletop simulation (Baseline) and immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Mean Post-training Debrief Experience Score
Time frame: Immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Mean Post-training MCIPHER Perception Score
Time frame: Immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Percentage Correct on the Post-training Knowledge Test
Time frame: Immediately after the 20-minute post-simulation debrief, approximately 80 minutes after simulation start (Day 1)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Sep 2026.
- Background1. Suda AJ, Franke A, Hertwig M, Gooßen K. Management of mass casualty incidents: a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg [Internet]. 2025 Dec [cited 2025 Jul 24];51(1). Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00068-024-02727-0 2. Tabletop Tests: Low-Cost, High-Impact Emergency Planning [Internet]. AlertMedia. [cited 2025 Jul 24]. Available from: https://www.alertmedia.com/blog/tabletop-test/ 3. On, Above, and Beyond: Taking Tabletops to the Third Dimension. In: Human-Computer Interaction Series [Internet]. London: Springer London; 2010 [cited 2025 Jul 24]. p. 277-99. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-84996-113-4_12 4. Chou WK, Lin CH. Teaching Senior Medical Students Mass Casualty Incident Management by 3D Tabletop Exercise without Lecture: Increase Students' Knowledge and Motivation. Prehosp Disaster med. 2023 May;38(S1):s22-3.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-identified individual participant data underlying the results reported in the publication will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Related trials for Mass Casualty Incident Preparedness
Not yet recruiting
Structured Debriefing and Institutional Trust After a Mass-Casualty Simulation
Mass-casualty Incident Preparedness
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Standard Mass-Casualty Incident Curriculum, MCIPHER mnemonic pre-brief and Tabletop Simulation in people with Mass Casualty Incident Preparedness and Simulation-Based Medical Education, run by Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences at 1 site in United Arab Emirates.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Arab Emirates. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percentage Team Performance Score During the First Tabletop Exercise (time frame: During the first tabletop exercise, approximately 60 minutes). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07838441, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Sep 2026.