Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39792184›Full record

GuidelineEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2025

Management of mass casualty incidents: a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update.

Arnold J Suda, Axel Franke, Miriam Hertwig, Käthe Gooßen

Abstract readPractice GuidelineSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Guideline in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Digital coordination in mass casualty incidents: a retrospective analysis of prehospital distribution times before and after IVENA-MANV implementation.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

4 authors.

Arnold J SudaCentre for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 67168, Mannheim, Germany. arnoldsuda@yahoo.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7194-8726
Axel FrankeDepartment for Trauma Surgery and Orthopaedics, Reconstructive and Septic Surgery, Sportstraumatology, German Armed Forces Hospital Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 40, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Miriam HertwigInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Käthe GooßenInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1436-1144

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOur aim was to generate evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the management of mass casualty incidents (MCIs) based on current evidence. This guideline topic is part of the 2022 update of the German guideline on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries.

methodsMEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched to August 2021. Further literature reports were obtained from clinical experts. Randomised controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, prospective cohort studies, and comparative registry studies were included if they compared triage algorithms, interventions for MCI training, logistics or transport, decontamination, diagnosis or therapy during MCIs in the prehospital and hospital settings. We considered patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, diagnostic outcomes including sensitivity and specificity, rates of undertriage and overtriage as well as resource use. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE 2012 checklists. The evidence was synthesised narratively, and expert consensus was used to develop recommendations and determine their strength. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) questions from clinical questions were developed by clinical experts and guideline methodologists.

resultsWe screened 321 records in the original guideline version and 4225 during this update. Twenty-five studies were included, all of them from the updated search from 2009 to 2021. Twenty-five new studies were identified. Interventions covered were triage training (n = 7 studies), prehospital triage (n = 6), secondary triage (n = 2), transport/logistics (n = 3), decontamination (n = 5), and therapy (n = 2) during MCIs. Three new recommendations were developed. All achieved strong consensus.

conclusionDue to unsatisfactory evidence, recommendations could only be made on training for improving triage quality and regular exercises for testing a hospital's emergency response plan. No triage algorithm can be scientifically proven to be superior in all aspects. The key recommendation is the following: To improve triage quality, exercises or (virtual) training should be conducted in-house using verified triage systems and algorithms.

Indexed as

Mass Casualty IncidentsTriageDecontaminationEmergency Medical ServicesGermanyHumansMultiple TraumaGuidelineMANVMass casualty incidentsPolytraumaTriage

Identifiers

PMID39792184
PMCPMC11723885

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.