Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2025
External validation and comparison of SAFE QUAKE and dialysis score in earthquake related crush injuries.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of two scoring systems-Seismic Assessment of Kidney Function to Rule Out Dialysis Requirement (SAFE-QUAKE) and the Dialysis Score-developed to assess the need for dialysis in patients with crush injuries admitted to the emergency department (ED) following the February 6 Türkiye earthquakes.
methodsIn this retrospective observational study, the performance of the SAFE-QUAKE and Dialysis Score systems were evaluated using data from a university hospital that was independent from the centers where these scores were originally developed. The study included patients admitted to the ED after the same earthquakes.
resultsThe SAFE-QUAKE score demonstrated a higher negative predictive value (NPV) for ruling out dialysis (93.4%), whereas the Dialysis Score had superior positive predictive value (PPV) (71.0%). Although the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was higher for SAFE-QUAKE [0.894 (95% CI: 0.831-0.957)] than for the Dialysis Score [0.836 (95% CI: 0.738-0.934)], this difference was not statistically significant (Z = 1.415; p = 0.157). According to the Net Reclassification Index (NRI), SAFE-QUAKE provided a clear advantage in correctly reclassifying non-dialysis patients to a lower-risk category [NRI⁻ = 0.491 (95% CI: 0.321-0.643)], correctly downgrading 74.5% of such patients while misclassifying only 25.5%. Across various hypothetical prevalence rates, SAFE-QUAKE consistently provided higher NPVs (e.g., 98.9% at 5% prevalence), while the Dialysis Score maintained higher PPVs (e.g., 28% at 5% prevalence; 88.0% at 50% prevalence).
conclusionFollowing catastrophic disasters such as the February 6 Türkiye earthquakes, the capacity of healthcare facilities to provide dialysis becomes a key factor in ED decision-making. When patients are to be transferred to facilities without dialysis capabilities, triage based on the SAFE-QUAKE score can help safely identify those at low risk for dialysis. Conversely, if the receiving center has dialysis capacity, the Dialysis Score can be used to prioritize patients more likely to require dialysis. The sequential use of both scores may enhance triage accuracy by prioritizing SAFE-QUAKE for rapid ED assessment and Dialysis Score for refining interfacility transfer decisions based on resource intensity. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.