ArticleCureus2025
Winning the Lottery: A Simulation Study Comparing Scarce Resource Allocation Protocols in Crisis Scenarios.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Biosecurity and Diagnosis of Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers: Strategic Considerations for Military Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction In times of crisis, such as natural disasters, pandemics, or other emergencies, healthcare facilities often experience an unprecedented surge in critically ill or severely injured patients. When the demand for life-saving resources surpasses the available supply, healthcare leaders must implement scarce resource allocation (SRA) protocols, which are defined by state governments or hospital committees. Due to the lack of federal standardization and the wide variations in these protocols across states and healthcare systems, researchers aimed to investigate the disparities in SRA protocols and their impact on patient outcomes in preparation for future emergencies. -- Methods Researchers created a simulation involving mock patients admitted to a hospital with limited ventilator availability, where they were required to implement an SRA protocol. Nine mock adult patient profiles were generated, each varying in age, biological sex, past medical history, social history, and illness acuity and severity. Researchers also comprehensively reviewed SRA protocols implemented across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six protocols were selected and applied to the mock patient population. Variations in the methodology of allocation and outcomes of resource stewardship were observed. Results Significant differences were found among the six SRA protocols, including differences in objective scoring categories, exclusion criteria, considerations for age and pregnancy, tie-breaking methods, and the use of lottery systems. These protocol differences influenced the outcomes of life-saving treatments received by different patients. In this simulation, no two state algorithms provided the same ventilator allocation results for the nine patients. Conclusion SRA protocols either emphasized scoring systems or employed an ambiguous lottery system, placing an unnecessary burden on physicians and patients. As a result, the researchers advocate for federal standardization of SRA protocols, to ensure equal access to critical medical care for all individuals, regardless of location, and to eliminate the element of chance that currently varies by state.
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.