ReviewTurkish journal of emergency medicine
A review of mass casualty incident triage tools for hospital-based triage.
Review in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond crisis: rethinking the evaluation of psychosocial interventions after mass casualty incidents.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- Article
- Deep vein thrombosis and coagulopathy following cyclone events: pathophysiology, risk factors, and prevention.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Green Triage: A Curtain in Front of Possible Serious Injuries.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) pose significant challenges to the healthcare systems, particularly in low-and lower-middle-income countries where prehospital triage is often limited, and hospitals face sudden surges of casualties. While triage tools have been widely studied for field use, their effectiveness in hospital-based MCI response remains unclear. This review examines peer-reviewed studies on hospital-based triage tools used during mass casualties, focusing on their accuracy and applicability. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE identified six relevant studies, conducted across various income settings and utilizing different methodologies, including simulation-based research, retrospective analyses, and real-world debriefings. Several tools were assessed, including Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment, the Modified CareFlight system, and homegrown triage models developed in Berlin and Iran. While some tools showed potential in prioritizing critically ill patients and managing resource allocation, their application in the real-world hospital settings remains insufficiently studied. Existing research is limited by small sample sizes, reliance on simulations, and a lack of validation in live MCI scenarios. Given these gaps, further research is essential to evaluate triage models in real-time, high-volume, and resource-limited environments to ensure effective hospital-based mass-casualty response.
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.