ArticleCritical care (London, England)2026
Prehospital transport prioritization and time-varying selection bias in traffic-related multi-patient incidents: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn prehospital multi-patient traffic incidents, the first ambulance to depart -priority transport - may reflect underlying injury severity rather than a treatment effect, as more severely injured patients are systematically prioritized. Conventional statistical methods often fail to separate this severity-dependent selection from actual outcomes. We applied a "doubly robust" statistical framework (augmented inverse probability weighting, AIPW), which combines a treatment model and an outcome model, to better account for measured differences, reduce selection bias, and examine whether on-scene time modifies this association.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study using emergency medical service transport records from the Fire and Disaster Management Agency of Japan (January 2021-December 2023). Of 13,821,224 records, 143,130 patients from traffic-related multi-patient incidents (TMIs; ≥2 patients per incident) with complete data were included. The exposure was priority transport. The primary outcome was physician-assessed death or critical/severe injury at hospital arrival. Marginal adjusted risk differences (RDs) were estimated using AIPW. Effect modification by on-scene time (5-60 min) was assessed by marginal standardization with cluster-bootstrap confidence intervals. Sensitivity analyses included overlap restriction and E-value quantification of unmeasured confounding.
resultsAmong 143,130 patients (median age 41 years; female, 50.57%), 62,769 (43.85%) underwent priority transport. Severe outcomes occurred in 4.35% of priority and 1.87% of non-priority patients. The overall RDs was 2.2% points (95% CI, 2.01-2.36). A significant interaction with on-scene time was observed (p < .001): the marginal RD was peaked at 5 min (6.4% points; 95% CI, 5.6-7.2), declined to a minimum of 1.4% points (95% CI, 1.3-1.6) at approximately 32 min, and increased modestly to 2.4% points (95% CI, 2.0-2.8) at 60 min. Sensitivity analyses confirmed result robustness, yielding an E-value of 3.76 (lower bound, 3.57).
conclusionsThe association between priority transport and severe outcome was modified by on-scene time, with the largest risk difference at the shortest on-scene times. This U-shaped pattern is consistent with preferential selection of more severely injured patients for rapid transport, rather than a direct effect of transport order. Accounting for prehospital triage selection when interpreting transport-outcome associations in critical care research.
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.