Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32309811›Full record

ArticleArchives of academic emergency medicine2020

Prioritized Criteria for Casualty Distribution following Trauma-related Mass Incidents; a Modified Delphi Study.

Mohammad Reza Khajehaminian, Ali Ardalan, Sayed Mohsen Hosseini Boroujeni, Amir Nejati, Omid Mahdi Ebadati, Mahdi Aghabagheri

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. An Evaluation Index System for Research Efficiency of Research-Oriented Hospitals in China.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohammad Reza KhajehaminianDepartment of Health in Emergencies and Disasters, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Yazd, Iran.
Ali ArdalanDepartment of Health in Emergencies and Disasters, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sayed Mohsen Hosseini BoroujeniDepartment of Health in Emergencies and Disasters, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Amir NejatiSchool of Nursing (Broujen), Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran.
Omid Mahdi EbadatiDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
Mahdi AghabagheriMeybod Nursing School, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IRKharazmi University · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the aftermath of mass casualty incidents (MCIs), many decisions need to be made in a fast and influential manner in a high pressure environment to distribute the limited resources among the numerous demands. This study was planned to rank the criteria influencing distribution of casualties following trauma-related MCI.

methodsThis study utilized a modified Delphi methodology, concentrating on extracted criteria attained from preceding systematic literature reviews. The 114 extracted criteria were classified into eight sections including space, staff, equipment, system and structures, triage, treatment, transport, and uncategorized criteria and were imported into an online survey tool. In the first round, experts were asked to rank each criterion on a five-point Likert scale. The second round incorporated feedbacks from the first round, stating percent and median scores from the panel as a whole. Experts were then called upon to reassess their initial opinions regarding uncertain remarks from the first round, and once again prioritize the presented criteria.

resultsFifty-seven criteria were regarded as relevant to the following sections: space: 70% (7/10); staff: 44% (4/9); system / structure: 80% (4/5); equipment: 39.1% (9/23); treatment; 66.7% (6/9); triage: 73.7% (14/19); transport: 38.7% (12/31) and other sections: 12.5% (1/8). The first round achieved nearly 98% (n=48) response rate. Of the 114 criteria given to the experts, 68 (almost 60%) were approved. The highest percentage of approval belonged to the system and structures sections (4/5=80%). The response rate for the second round was about 86% (n=42). A consensus could be reached about nearly 84% (57) of the 68 criteria presented to experts.

conclusion"Casualty Level of Triage on the Scene" and "Number of Available Ambulances" were the two criteria that obtained the highest level of consensus. On the other hand, "gender of casualty", "Number of Non-Medical staff in each Hospital" and "Desire to transport family members together" got lowest level of consensus. This sorted list could be used as a catalogue for developing a decision support system or tool for distribution of victims following mass casualty incidents.

Indexed as

decision makingMass casualty incidentssupply and distributionwounds and injuries

Identifiers

PMID32309811
PMCPMC7159141
OpenAlexW3016478667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.