ArticleJB & JS open access
Modeling Musculoskeletal Combat Casualty Care: NATO Trauma System Performance in Large Scale Combat Operations.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.