ArticleBMJ open2020
Comparison of emergency department trauma triage performance of clinicians and clinical prediction models: a cohort study in India.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02838459 (Can Prediction Models Triage Trauma Patients More Accurately Than Clinicians?), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Can Prediction Models Triage Trauma Patients More Accurately Than Clinicians?
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Composite shock indices with age, GCS, and SpO2 for trauma triage outcomes: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Profile and triage validity of trauma patients triaged green: a prospective cohort study from a secondary care hospital in India.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Glasgow Coma Scale Versus Physiologic Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcome of ICU admitted Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Validation of a five-level triage system in pediatric trauma and the effectiveness of triage nurse modification: A multi-center cohort analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- [Challenges of digitalization in trauma care].Der Unfallchirurg · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the abilities of clinicians and clinical prediction models to accurately triage emergency department (ED) trauma patients. We compared the decisions made by clinicians with the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), the Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Systolic Blood Pressure (GAP) score, the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) and the Gerdin
designProspective cohort study.
settingThree hospitals in urban India.
participantsIn total, 7697 adult patients who presented to participating hospitals with a history of trauma were approached for enrolment. The final study sample included 5155 patients. The majority (4023, 78.0%) were male.
main outcome measureThe patient outcome was mortality within 30 days of arrival at the participating hospital. A grid search was used to identify model cut-off values. Clinicians and categorised models were evaluated and compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROCC) and net reclassification improvement in non-survivors (NRI+) and survivors (NRI-) separately.
resultsThe differences in AUROCC between each categorised model and the clinicians were 0.016 (95% CI -0.014 to 0.045) for RTS, 0.019 (95% CI -0.007 to 0.058) for GAP, 0.054 (95% CI 0.033 to 0.077) for KTS and -0.007 (95% CI -0.035 to 0.03) for Gerdin
conclusionThe findings of this study suggest that there are no substantial differences in discrimination and net reclassification improvement between clinicians and all four clinical prediction models when using 30-day mortality as the outcome of ED trauma triage in adult patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02838459).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.