Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41104363›Full record

ReviewTurkish journal of emergency medicine

A review of mass casualty incident triage tools for hospital-based triage.

Sarah S Abdul-Nabi, Eveline Hitti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
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

2 authors.

Sarah S Abdul-NabiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2770-4740
Eveline HittiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9576-895X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Hospital preparednessmass casualty incidenttriage tools

Identifiers

PMID41104363
PMCPMC12527048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.