Background <p>Disasters create strain on health systems and require significant preparedness to reduce mortality and morbidity. Special care services; e.g. Advanced Life Support, critical care interventions (intubation; vasopressor therapy) and point of care diagnostics (ultrasound) may be provided in disaster-settings, although actual use of services is dependent on logistical, operational and contextual issues. This systematic review identifies an important gap to understand the effectiveness, feasibility and barriers to, special care services.The overall aim of this systematic review is to synthesise global evidence on the evidence-based practices and improve disaster response.</p> Methods <p>This systematic review utilized PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature from the time of inception of the different databases to January 2025, from which a total of 4465 records were identified. After a thorough, organized review of the identified records based on our exclusion criteria and inclusion criteria, a total of 31 articles were retained. The systematic review followed PRISMA 2020, and searched for studies on special care services in a pre-hospital disaster setting, and included primary research and review articles that described advanced interventions, and which had no time restrictions on date of publication. Articles that were waived from the cost of in-app purchasing were excluded due to limited resources and could limit the studies that were included. Quality assessment using STROBE, SANRA and checklists, along with the categories of findings using a thematic content analysis based on the dimensions of prehospital care.</p> Results <p>Thematic analysis revealed six broad themes: Patient Care and Clinical Management, Operational Efficiency and Logistics, Personnel and Training, Technology and Equipment, System Coordination and Preparedness, and Ethical and Contextual Considerations. Advanced functions like REBOA, ultrasound and AI-related diagnostics improved survival and neurological outcomes, However, they were restricted due to limited resources, lack of training, and lack of coordination, particularly in low resource contexts.</p> Conclusions <p>The reviewed literature demonstrated that critical-care services such as Advanced Life Support (ALS), intubation, and ultrasound resulted in improved morbidity and mortality outcomes in disaster settings but were limited due to resource constraints, lack of training and inadequate coordination all the more pertinent to low-resource settings.</p> Clinical trial number <p>Not applicable.</p>