Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38404235›Full record

Observational studyPrehospital and disaster medicine2024

Comparative Analysis of META and SALT Disaster Triage in an Adult Trauma Population: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Gawin Tiyawat, J Marc Liu, Thongpitak Huabbangyang, Cesar Luis Roza-Alonso, Rafael Castro-Delgado

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Prehospital and disaster medicine, 2024. 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Gawin TiyawatDepartment of Disaster and Emergency Medical Operation, Faculty of Science and Health Technology, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.
J Marc LiuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WisconsinUSA.
Thongpitak HuabbangyangDepartment of Disaster and Emergency Medical Operation, Faculty of Science and Health Technology, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-7137-6652
Cesar Luis Roza-AlonsoHealth Service of the Principality of Asturias (SAMU-Asturias), Health Research Institute of the Principality of Asturias (Research Group on Prehospital Care and Disasters, GIAPREDE), Oviedo, Spain.
Rafael Castro-DelgadoHealth Service of the Principality of Asturias (SAMU-Asturias), Health Research Institute of the Principality of Asturias (Research Group on Prehospital Care and Disasters, GIAPREDE), Oviedo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9520-656X
Navamindradhiraj University · THGobierno del Principado de Asturias · ESMedical College of Wisconsin · USUniversidad de Oviedo · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical professionals can use mass-casualty triage systems to assist them in prioritizing patients from mass-casualty incidents (MCIs). Correct triaging of victims will increase their chances of survival. Determining the triage system that has the best performance has proven to be a difficult question to answer. The Advanced Prehospital Triage Model (Modelo Extrahospitalario de Triaje Avanzado; META) and Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Interventions, Treatment/Transport (SALT) algorithms are the most recent triage techniques to be published. The present study aimed to evaluate the META and SALT algorithms' performance and statistical agreement with various standards. The secondary objective was to determine whether these two MCI triage systems predicted patient outcomes, such as mortality, length-of-stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

methodsThis retrospective study used patient data from the trauma registry of an American College of Surgeons Level 1 trauma center, from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. The sensitivity, specificity, and statistical agreement of the META and SALT triage systems to various standards (Revised Trauma Score [RTS]/Sort Triage, Injury Severity Score [ISS], and Lerner criteria) when applied using trauma patients. Statistical analysis was used to assess the relationship between each triage category and the secondary outcomes.

resultsA total of 3,097 cases were included in the study. Using Sort triage as the standard, SALT and META showed much higher sensitivity and specificity in the Immediate category than for Delayed (Immediate sensitivity META 91.5%, SALT 94.9%; specificity 60.8%, 72.7% versus Delayed sensitivity 28.9%, 1.3%; specificity 42.4%, 28.9%). With the Lerner criteria, in the Immediate category, META had higher sensitivity (77.1%, SALT 68.6%) but lower specificity (61.1%) than SALT (71.8%). For the Delayed category, SALT showed higher sensitivity (META 61.4%, SALT 72.2%), but lower specificity (META 75.1%, SALT 67.2%). Both systems showed a positive, though modest, correlation with ISS. For SALT and META, triaged Immediate patients tended to have higher mortality and longer ICU and hospital lengths-of-stay.

conclusionBoth META and SALT triage appear to be more accurate with Immediate category patients, as opposed to Delayed category patients. With both systems, patients triaged as Immediate have higher mortality and longer lengths-of-stay when compared to Delayed patients. Further research can help refine MCI triage systems and improve accuracy.

Indexed as

Mass Casualty IncidentsTriageAdultAgedAlgorithmsEmergency Medical ServicesFemaleHumansInjury Severity ScoreMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRetrospective StudiesTrauma CentersWounds and Injuriesdata accuracydisastersmass-casualty incidentsmass-casualty triageprehospital caretriage

Identifiers

PMID38404235
PMCPMC11035921
OpenAlexW4392167606

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.