ArticleUpdates in surgery2022
A prospective study comparing two methods of pre-hospital triage for trauma.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardized handover improves trauma team communication: evidence from a level I Trauma Center in Italy.Updates in surgery · 2026Observational
- Unveiling the performance of the prehospital Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (pREMS): How the predictive score impacts in-hospital outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI): A retrospective observational cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Future Perspectives on Radiomics in Acute Liver Injury and Liver Trauma.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a prospective study comparing two different pre-hospital triage tools for trauma: the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) field triage decision scheme and the TRENAU score. The main objective was to evaluate which triage tool was more appropriate in the setting of Lombardy's trauma system. Data were collected from the population of trauma patients admitted to Niguarda hospital in Milan from January to June 2021. RStudio and Excel were used for data analysis. For each triage tool performance measures, Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves, and overtriage and undertriage rates were obtained. A total of 1439 injured patients admitted through 118 pre-hospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were included in the study. The ACS-COT triage tool showed a good accuracy but an excessive overtriage rate (59%). The TRENAU triage tool had a moderately good accuracy and a low overtriage rate (23%) while maintaining an acceptable undertriage rate (3.9%). The TRENAU triage tool proved to be efficient in optimizing the use of resources dedicated to trauma care while resulting safe for the injured patient. In a modern trauma system such as Lombardy's it would be more appropriate to adopt the TRENAU score over the ACS-COT field triage decision scheme.
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.