ArticleBMJ open2021
Assessment of earthquake casualties and comparison of accuracy of five injury triage methods: evidence from a retrospective study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Operational Health Pavilions in Mass Disasters: Lessons Learned from the 2023 Earthquake in Turkey and Syria.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Factors related to early and rapid assessment of in-hospital mortality among older adult trauma patients in an earthquake.World journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe use of an injury triage method among earthquake injury patients can facilitate the reasonable allocation of resources, but the various existing injury triage methods need further confirmation. This study aims to assess the accuracy of several injury triage methods, namely, the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) technique; CareFlight Injury Triage (CareFlight); Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS); Triage Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS) and Triage Early Warning Score (TEWS), based on their effects on earthquake injury patients.
designData in the Huaxi Earthquake Casualty Database were analysed retrospectively.
settingThis study was conducted in China.
participantsData on 29 523 earthquake casualties were separately evaluated using the START technique, CareFlight, REMS, T-RTS and TEWS, with these being the five types of injury triage studied. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the five injury triages were calculated based on hospital deaths, injury severity scores greater than 15 points, and whether casualties stayed in the intensive care unit.
resultsThe ROC curve areas of the START technique, CareFlight, REMS, T-RTS and TEWS were 0.750, 0.737, 0.835, 0.736 and 0.797, respectively. Among the five injury triages, the most accurate in predicting hospital deaths was REMS, with an average area under the curve (AUC) of 0.835, with this due to the inclusion of more evaluation indicators.
conclusionAll methods had an effect on the triage of earthquake mass casualties. Among them, the REMS injury triage method had the largest AUC of the five triage methods. Except for REMS, no obvious difference was found in the effect of the other four injury triage methods.
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.