ArticlePloS one2024
Investigating ethical tradeoffs in crisis standards of care through simulation of ventilator allocation protocols.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Simulating crisis triage: a methodological framework for evaluating ventilator allocation under crisis standards of care.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Correction: Investigating ethical tradeoffs in crisis standards of care through simulation of ventilator allocation protocols.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionArguments over the appropriate Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) for public health emergencies often assume that there is a tradeoff between saving the most lives, saving the most life-years, and preventing racial disparities. However, these assumptions have rarely been explored empirically. To quantitatively characterize possible ethical tradeoffs, we aimed to simulate the implementation of five proposed CSC protocols for rationing ventilators in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsA Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the number of lives saved and life-years saved by implementing clinical acuity-, comorbidity- and age-based CSC protocols under different shortage conditions. This model was populated with patient data from 3707 adult admissions requiring ventilator support in a New York hospital system between April 2020 and May 2021. To estimate lives and life-years saved by each protocol, we determined survival to discharge and estimated remaining life expectancy for each admission.
resultsThe simulation demonstrated stronger performance for age-sensitive protocols. For a capacity of 1 bed per 2 patients, ranking by age bands saves approximately 29 lives and 3400 life-years per thousand patients. Proposed protocols from New York and Maryland which allocated without considering age saved the fewest lives (~13.2 and 8.5 lives) and life-years (~416 and 420 years). Unlike other protocols, the New York and Maryland algorithms did not generate significant disparities in lives saved and life-years saved between White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, and Hispanic sub-populations. For all protocols, we observed a positive correlation between lives saved and life-years saved, but also between lives saved overall and inequality in the number of lives saved in different race and ethnicity sub-populations.
conclusionWhile there is significant variance in the number of lives saved and life-years saved, we did not find a tradeoff between saving the most lives and saving the most life-years. Moreover, concerns about racial discrimination in triage protocols require thinking carefully about the tradeoff between enforcing equality of survival rates and maximizing the lives saved in each sub-population.
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.