Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26694107›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016

Radiological mass casualty incident (MCI) workflow analysis: single-centre data of a mid-scale exercise.

Fabian G Mueck, Kathrin Wirth, Maximilian Muggenthaler, Uwe Kreimeier, Lucas Geyer, Karl-Georg Kanz, Ulrich Linsenmaier, Stefan Wirth

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Fabian G Mueck1 Department of Clinical Radiology, LMU Hospital of the University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Kathrin Wirth1 Department of Clinical Radiology, LMU Hospital of the University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Maximilian Muggenthaler1 Department of Clinical Radiology, LMU Hospital of the University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Uwe Kreimeier2 Department of Anesthesiology, LMU Hospital of the University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Lucas Geyer1 Department of Clinical Radiology, LMU Hospital of the University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Karl-Georg Kanz3 Department of Trauma Surgery, Hospital of the Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ulrich Linsenmaier4 Department of diagnostic and interventional radiology, HELIOS Clinic Munich East, Munich, Germany.
Stefan Wirth1 Department of Clinical Radiology, LMU Hospital of the University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEHelios Kliniken · DELMU Klinikum · DETechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of the study was to analyse and interpret radiological mass casualty incident workflow data.

methodsIn a mid-scale mass casualty incident exercise, the on-site triage assigned 12 cases to the investigated institution (11 included in the study). Two out of five institutional multislice-CT-scanners were used and the whole CT workflow and radiological service process chain were simulated as close to realistic as possible. The respective time intervals for reaching defined milestones were measured.

resultsThe average CT in-room time, i.e. from entering to leaving the CT room was 9.43 min [(standard deviation) SD: 2.27 min; 95% (confidence interval) CI: 7.90-10.95 min]. Time spent on CT table was 6.75 min (SD: 1.67; CI: 5.63-7.87), and the pure scan time was 4.22 min (SD: 0.64; CI: 3.79-4.65). The first images after entering the CT room were available at a dedicated CT workstation after 5.85 min (SD: 2.20; CI: 4.37-7.32) and institution wide via picture archiving system (PACS) after 7.85 min (SD: 1.27; CI: 7.00-8.71). However, the PACS archiving process, that is, transfer of standard reconstruction set of CT images into the PACS was finished after 20.85 min (SD: 2.97; CI: 18.85-22.84).

conclusionUp to six patients may be served per hour and per CT scanner by using a standard whole body CT polytrauma protocol. Dedicated CT triage protocols may even increase this number. The time portion until images were available at end points was relatively long. A solution has to be developed in order to avoid scenarios of patients being faster at end points than their images.

Indexed as

Mass Casualty IncidentsPatient SimulationWorkflowHumansMultiple TraumaTime FactorsTomography Scanners, X-Ray ComputedTomography, X-Ray ComputedTriage

Identifiers

PMID26694107
PMCPMC4985469
OpenAlexW2208434859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.