ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In mass casualty incidents, insufficient triage may lead to increased morbidity and mortality due to delayed evacuation and treatment of the most critically injured patients. We report current litterature findings on accuracy of primary prehospital triage systems for mass casualty incidents in full-scale live simulations and map the challenges that lie ahead for finding the most accurate triage system. METHODS: This study was registered with PROSPERO ID: CRD42018091889. We searched the databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, Central, Web of Science, Reference lists, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar. We included primary triage systems, studies reporting accuracy or outcomes convertible to accuracy and studies performed in full-scale live simulations. We excluded studies using paediatric, chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear populations or triage systems. Bias rating was based on a modified version of the QUADAS-2. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included. Six of 41 existing triage methods were tested. The studies showed substantial heterogeneity in both study characteristics and findings. Different reference standards were applied and most were based on author-defined triage categories. All studies carried an unclear-to-high risk of bias. Therefore, no quantitative comparisons were made. CONCLUSION: In general, the studies suffered from substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias. A standardised protocol for future live simulations is needed to encourage consistent and comparable data collection. We identified some of the most important topics to address in such a protocol.
Subject(s)
Mass Casualty Incidents , Triage , Humans , Triage/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Prioritising patients in mass casualty incidents (MCI) can be extremely difficult. Therefore, triage systems are important in every emergency medical service. This study reviews the accuracy of primary triage systems for MCI in trauma register studies. METHODS: We registered a protocol at PROSPERO ID: CRD42018115438. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, Web of Science, Scopus, Clinical Trials, Google Scholar, and reference lists for eligible studies. We included studies that both examined a primary triage system for MCI in trauma registers and provided sensitivity and specificity for critically injured vs non-critically injured as results. We excluded studies that used paediatric, chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear MCIs populations or triage systems. Finally, we calculated intra-study relative sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio for each triage system. RESULTS: Triage Sieve (TS) significantly underperformed in relative diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) when compared to START and CareFlight (CF) (START vs TS: 19.85 vs 13.23 (p<0.0001)âCF vs TS: 23.72 vs 12.83 (p<0.0001)). There was no significant difference in DOR between TS and Military Sieve (MS) (p<0.710). Compared to START, MS and CF TS had significantly higher relative specificity (START vs TS: 93.6% vs 96.1% (p=0.047)âCF vs TS: 96% vs 95.3% (p=0.0006)âMS vs TS: 94% vs 88.3% (p=0.0002)) and lower relative sensitivity (START vs TS: 57.8% vs 34.8% (p<0.0001)âCF vs TS: 53.9% vs 34.7% (p<0.0001)âMS vs TS: 51.9% vs 35.2% p<0.0001)). CF had significantly better relative DOR than START (CF vs START: 23.56 vs 27.79 (p=0.043)). MS had significantly better relative sensitivity than CF and START (MS vs CF: 49.5% vs 38.7% (p<0.0001)âMS vs START: 49.4% vs 43.9% (p=0.01)). In contrast, CF had significantly better relative specificity than MS (MS vs CF: 91.3% vs 93.3% (p<0.0001)). The remaining comparisons did not yield any significant differences. CONCLUSION: As the included studies were at risk of bias and had heterogenic characteristics, our results should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, our results point towards inferior accuracy of Triage Sieve compared to START and CareFlight, and less firmly point towards superior accuracy of Military Sieve compared to START, CareFlight and Triage Sieve.
