Trial reportPrehospital and disaster medicine2025
Performance of Sieve versus SwissPre Prehospital Triage Algorithms in a Simulated Mass-Casualty Incident: A Randomized Open-Label Study.
Trial report in Prehospital and disaster 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTriage is an essential process used to adequately allocate resources and thus increase chances of survival in case of mass-casualty incidents (MCIs). Several triage scales are currently used, but data regarding their performance remain scarce. The objective was to compare the performance of two prehospital triage algorithms (Sieve versus SwissPre) using a validated physiological simulator.
methodsThis was a web-based, randomized open-label study. A real-time evolutive simulator based on a heart-lung-brain interaction model embedding functional blocks was used to simulate the evolution of vital parameters. Participants, who were randomly allocated to either algorithm, were asked to triage 30 patients in random order. The primary outcome was the triage score (each correct decision was awarded one point). The "Immediate patients" were defined as those who would die within the first hour according to the physiological model. The secondary outcome was the duration of patient triage.
resultsOut of 71 participants, 67 (94.4%) were included in the final analysis. The Sieve group achieved a mean score of 17.1 out of 30 (95%CI, 16.3 to 17.8). The SwissPre group scored 15.5 out of 30 (95%CI, 14.5 to 16.5). The mean difference between groups was 1.6 points (95%CI, 0.4 to 2.8; P = .011) in favor of the Sieve algorithm. Triage duration did not differ significantly between the Sieve (mean 43 minutes, SD = 10) and SwissPre (mean 46 minutes, SD = 23) groups, with a mean difference of three minutes (95%CI, -12 to 6; P = .507).
conclusionsThe simpler Sieve algorithm may slightly outperform the more complex SwissPre in accurately categorizing critically injured patients who would likely die within 60 minutes if left untreated. No significant difference was observed in triage speed. However, these exploratory findings should be interpreted cautiously, considering the mean difference was modest and the controlled simulated setting, limiting generalizability.
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.