ArticleCJEM2023
An assessment of mass casualty triage systems using the Alberta trauma registry.
Article in CJEM, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Use of the Shock Index to Classify Patients During Mass-Casualty Incident Triage.Prehospital and disaster medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTriage is the process of identifying patients with both the greatest clinical need and the greatest likelihood of benefit in the setting of limited clinical resources. The primary objective of this study was to assess the ability of formal mass casualty incident triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.
methodsData from the Alberta Trauma Registry (ATR) was used to assess seven triage tools: START, JumpSTART, SALT, RAMP, MPTT, BCD and MITT. Clinical data captured in the ATR was used to determine which triage category each of the seven tools would have applied to each patient. These categorizations were compared to a reference standard definition based on the patients' need for specific urgent lifesaving interventions.
resultsOf the 9448 records that were captured 8652 were included in our analysis. The most sensitive triage tool was MPTT, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.76 (0.75, 0.78). Four of the seven triage tools evaluated had sensitivities below 0.45. JumpSTART had the lowest sensitivity and the highest under-triage rate for pediatric patients. All the triage tools evaluated had a moderate to high positive predictive value (> 0.67) for patients who had experienced penetrating trauma.
conclusionsThere was a wide range in the sensitivity of triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions. MPTT, BCD and MITT were the most sensitive triage tools assessed. All of the triage tools assessed should be employed with caution during mass casualty incidents as they may fail to identify a large proportion of patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37306923What 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.