Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33315112›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Comparison of 2 Triage Scoring Guidelines for Allocation of Mechanical Ventilators.

Hannah Wunsch, Andrea D Hill, Nicholas Bosch, Neill K J Adhikari, Gordon Rubenfeld, Allan Walkey, Bruno L Ferreyro, Bourke W Tillmann, Andre C K B Amaral, Damon C Scales and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Hippocrates and prophecies: the unfulfilled promise of prediction rules.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Simulation of Ventilator Allocation in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Hannah WunschDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Andrea D HillDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nicholas BoschDepartment of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Neill K J AdhikariDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon RubenfeldDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Allan WalkeyDepartment of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Bruno L FerreyroInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bourke W TillmannDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Andre C K B AmaralDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Damon C ScalesDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eddy FanInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Brian H CuthbertsonDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Robert A FowlerDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: In the current setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, there is concern for the possible need for triage criteria for ventilator allocation; to our knowledge, the implications of using specific criteria have never been assessed. Objective: To determine which and how many admissions to intensive care units are identified as having the lowest priority for ventilator allocation using 2 distinct sets of proposed triage criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study conducted in spring 2020 used data collected from US hospitals and reported in the Philips eICU Collaborative Research Database. Adult admissions (N = 40 439) to 291 intensive care units from 2014 to 2015 who received mechanical ventilation and were not elective surgery patients were included. Exposures: New York State triage criteria and original triage criteria proposed by White and Lo. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were calculated for admissions. The proportion of patients who met initial criteria for the lowest level of priority for mechanical ventilation using each set of criteria and their characteristics and outcomes were assessed. Agreement was compared between the 2 sets of triage criteria, recognizing differences in stated criteria aims. Results: Among 40 439 intensive care unit admissions of patients who received mechanical ventilation, the mean (SD) age was 62.6 (16.6) years, 54.9% were male, and the mean (SD) SOFA score was 4.5 (3.7). Using the New York State triage criteria, 8.9% (95% CI, 8.7%-9.2%) were in the lowest priority category; these lowest priority admissions had a mean (SD) age of 62.9 (16.6) years, used a median (interquartile range) of 57.3 (20.1-133.5) ventilator hours each, and had a hospital survival rate of 38.6% (95% CI, 37.0%-40.2%). Using the White and Lo triage criteria, 4.3% (95% CI, 4.1%-4.5%) were in the lowest priority category; these admissions had a mean (SD) age of 68.6 (13.2) years, used a median (interquartile range) of 61.7 (24.3-142.8) ventilator hours each, and had a hospital survival rate of 56.2% (95% CI, 53.8%-58.7%). Only 655 admissions (1.6%) were in the lowest priority category for both guidelines, with the κ statistic for agreement equal to 0.20 (95% CI, 0.18-0.21). Conclusions and Relevance: Use of 2 initially proposed ventilator triage guidelines identified approximately 1 in every 10 to 25 admissions as having the lowest priority for ventilator allocation, with little agreement. Clinical assessment of different potential criteria for triage decisions in critically ill populations is important to ensure valid and equitable allocation of resources.

Indexed as

COVID-19Ventilators, MechanicalAgedCritical IllnessFemaleHealth Care RationingHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedNew YorkOrgan Dysfunction ScoresRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Triage

Identifiers

PMID33315112
PMCPMC7737087

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.