ArticlePloS one2026
High-speed trains versus air transport vectors for mass transfers of critically ill patients: The TRANSCOV cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe first COVID-19 epidemic wave hit the East and Ile-de-France regions in France, resulting in overwhelmed intensive care units (ICUs). Alongside helicopters and planes, high-speed trains were used for the first time to mass-evacuate critically ill patients. This study aimed to compare outcomes of patients evacuated by trains and by aircrafts.
methodsThis was a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Between 13 March and 10 April 2020, 38 ICUs in France transferred patients with severe COVID-19 to 60 ICUs in unaffected regions and countries. Patients were divided into the train group (n = 130) and the air group (n = 163). The study outcomes included 28-day case-fatality, destination ICU length of stay and post-transfer Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.
resultsAge and comorbidity did not differ between groups. Although patients spent more time (+2 hours) and travelled further (+250 km) in the train group than in the air group, the median post-transfer SOFA score was lower in the train group (6 vs 7; p = 0.03). The 28-day mortality rates were not different (train/air unadjusted incidence risk ratio: 0.96; p = 0.94). The ICU stay duration was shorter (-6 days) in the train group, but this difference was reduced after adjusting for clinical events, such as nosocomial infections.
conclusionHigh-speed train was a safe vehicle for remote transfer of critically ill patients. The selection of healthier patients and the better physiological and care conditions during the evacuation may explain the shorter ICU stays of patients transferred by trains.
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.