Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37823925›Full record

ArticleDie Anaesthesiologie2023

Validation of secondary triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents : A simulation-based study-English version.

Axel R Heller, Tobias Neidel, Patrick J Klotz, André Solarek, Barbara Kowalzik, Kathleen Juncken, Christan Kleber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Axel R HellerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstraße 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany. Axel.Heller@uni-a.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6144-3874
Tobias NeidelDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstraße 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Patrick J KlotzDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstraße 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
André SolarekDepartment of Disaster preparedness and Emergency Planning, Charité, Berlin, Germany.
Barbara KowalzikDivision III.3 Protection of Health, German Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, Bonn, Germany.
Kathleen JunckenMedical Directorate, Dresden Municipal Hospital, Dresden, Germany.
Christan KleberClinic and Polyclinic for Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig AöR, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the event of a mass casualty incident (MCI), the situation-related shortage of medical resources does not end when the patients are transported from the scene of the incident. Consequently, an initial triage is required in the receiving hospitals. In the first step, the aim of this study was to create a reference patient vignette set with defined triage categories. This allowed a computer-aided evaluation of the diagnostic quality of triage algorithms for MCI situations in the second step.

methodsA total of 250 case vignettes validated in practice were entered into a multistage evaluation process by initially 6 and later 36 triage experts. This algorithm-independent expert evaluation of all vignettes-served as the gold standard for analyzing the diagnostic quality of the following triage algorithms: Manchester triage system (MTS module MCI), emergency severity index (ESI), Berlin triage algorithm (BER), the prehospital algorithms PRIOR and mSTaRT, and two project algorithms from a cooperation between the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan-intrahospital Jordanian-German project algorithm (JorD) and prehospital triage algorithm (PETRA). Each patient vignette underwent computerized triage through all specified algorithms to obtain comparative test quality outcomes.

resultsOf the original 250 vignettes, a triage reference database of 210 patient vignettes was validated independently of the algorithms. These formed the gold standard for comparison of the triage algorithms analyzed. Sensitivities for intrahospital detection of patients in triage category T1 ranged from 1.0 (BER, JorD, PRIOR) to 0.57 (MCI module MTS). Specificities ranged from 0.99 (MTS and PETRA) to 0.67 (PRIOR). Considering Youden's index, BER (0.89) and JorD (0.88) had the best overall performance for detecting patients in triage category T1. Overtriage was most likely with PRIOR, and undertriage with the MCI module of MTS. Up to a decision for category T1, the algorithms require the following numbers of steps given as the median and interquartile range (IQR): ESI 1 (1-2), JorD 1 (1-4), PRIOR 3 (2-4), BER 3 (2-6), mSTaRT 3 (3-5), MTS 4 (4-5) and PETRA 6 (6-8). For the T2 and T3 categories the number of steps until a decision and the test quality of the algorithms are positively interrelated.

conclusionIn the present study, transferability of preclinical algorithm-based primary triage results to clinical algorithm-based secondary triage results was demonstrated. The highest diagnostic quality for secondary triage was provided by the Berlin triage algorithm, followed by the Jordanian-German project algorithm for hospitals, which, however, also require the most algorithm steps until a decision.

Indexed as

Mass Casualty IncidentsTriageAlgorithmsBerlinComputer SimulationHumansDisaster managementEmergency departmentEmergency preparednessHospital alarm and operation planSecondary triage

Identifiers

PMID37823925
PMCPMC10692258

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.