Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40927596›Full record

ArticleJB & JS open access

Modeling Musculoskeletal Combat Casualty Care: NATO Trauma System Performance in Large Scale Combat Operations.

Mark P Cote, Kaitlyn E Holly, Roman J Schoenfeld, Matthew R Bryan, Malina O Hatton, Mitchel B Harris, Tracey P Koehlmoos, Andrew J Schoenfeld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Mark P CoteDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5805-9273
Kaitlyn E HollyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4718-6857
Roman J SchoenfeldUnited States Military Academy, West Point, New York.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2427-6797
Matthew R BryanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6002-4052
Malina O HattonHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4032-4433
Mitchel B HarrisDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7003-6138
Tracey P KoehlmoosCenter for Health Services Research, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1377-8615
Andrew J SchoenfeldDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3691-1215

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: It is unclear whether the current North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) trauma system will be effective in the setting of Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO). We sought to model the efficacy of the NATO trauma system in the setting of LSCO. We also intended to model novel scenarios that could better adapt the current system to LSCO. Methods: We developed a discrete-event simulation model for patients with combat musculoskeletal injuries treated within the standard NATO system. The primary outcome of the model was survival. The model's health states were characterized as stable, hypovolemia, sepsis, shock, or death. The model simulated combat intensity by increasing the number of casualties up to 192 casualties per 24 hours. We explored how an augmented system (FC) and Field Hospital (FH) moved closer to the battlefront would change performance. Results: Mortality rates rose precipitously from a 10% baseline to 61% at 12 casualties per 24 hours in the base model. This performance was not significantly different from that of the FC model at any casualty rate. Successful evacuation of casualties was significantly more for the FH model versus the base model at 12 casualties/24 hours (47.5% vs. 39%; p = 0.046), 48 casualties/24 hours (45.5% vs. 33%; p = 0.008), and 192 casualties/24 hours (25% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.02). Conclusions: The current NATO model experiences high rates of mortality in LSCO. The most effective modification entails situating Field Hospitals within one-hour of ground transport from the battlefront. Level of Evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID40927596
PMCPMC12417006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.